and the most pertinent section. >> is there anything else in the conversation that you wanted to share. >> we have more specific kind of diner, i believe also remotely for this meeting. we went through sections but that was the broad gist of it. we did go through the red line and explain with some specificity where we thought the line should be inserted. >> commissioner benedicto. >> i think the chief wanted to add something. >> i can respond now or after. >> i'll ask my questions then. thank you, chief and director hawkins. i'm glad that we finally have a

version of this mou to the public can see and that commissioner can see. i'm glad that we're close to thend of what has been a long process. i'm going to start by saying before i go into my questions. i don't think we're there yet and i don't yet feel comfortable approving this m.o. u under our authority. and obviously two parties here and hope that the recommendations are taken and considered by the district attorney's office and considered bit mediator. so a lot of recommendations, i believe that dpa is going to issue a written red line document with the specific changes that they planned to

request, is that correct? we actual actually can do that. i would be appreciative to this. if they can see those changes. generally quite supportive of including dpa and ensuring that dp a's role is clear. we have the inconsistent that they've gotten at scenes, looking at the department of justice and the panel's recommendations. several of them cooperation with dpa involves the city working more closely with dpa, recommendations 9.1, 9.4 to external recommendation 10.1 and 10.2 all of these have to

do with dpa and while i appreciate the chief had a appreciation with us earlier, there is a to keep this document narrow, but i've been clear how many recommendations have been given where ever there is an opportunity to make sure that relationship plays can be clarified. i think we should take that opportunity to clarify those. if you don't mind, i'm going to dive right in. on page 2 of the red line number 3, uses of force. it seems to be quoting to 5.01 but it's changes the language, and use of force directly causing injury when the 5.0 relevant cases say resulting in, is there a reason why we went from that language to directly causing? >> yes, there is. that was one of the issues that

became a point of contention in terms of there were cases the typesed of cases where people were taken to hospital >> the person was taken to the hospital. and part of the contention i'll put it that way, whether or not there should have been a note fickation call out on that particular case. and this mou, every mou meeting from the time this was created was really designed in the spirit. it was those incident causing from the use of force injuries

and hospitalizations anyway are the covered incidents. there are some areas where we don't know until we know. but the point is, somebody is, taken to the hospital and they've been involved in the use of force and you have a total unrelated injury. that should not trigger a covered incident. we wanted some clarity because we did have contention. it does not change any of the language in 5.01, in fact number 2 refers to 5.02 not 5.01. it was felt that this was clearer language and easier to discern, and which one treasuring the call out response. that's why the language was changed to clarify that issue.

>> okay, it seems to me that if there was an incident that qualified as a use of force, you would still have to report the incident under section 2, right? even if it was not directly causing under section 1. >> so there is other, in 5.01, it spells out, obligations of the supervisor when it's they believe violation, accessive force violation. even if it does not trigger hospitalization. that's what number 2 is referring to. the clean up of the language in number 1 is what i just said. which ones we're obligated and

contact the d.a. and they respond. and not have this abscess, not to use the use of force. he's in the hospital, he's infected. >> that makes sense, it strikes me as more confusing as to have more confusion language here. i'm just raising that as a question. i would like to go to page 3, i think this is one of the points that they wanted to have their role clarified in d, as the primary responsible for criminal setionz. i'll note that and they're doing their own separate thing.

and i think that's another one where i think it makes sense to put sfp investigations because i think they appreciating that this is a document between the pa where we can include dpa is always better and more in line with the dgo recommendations. similarly on page 4, i know, on roman numeral four, they will share and on roman numeral 5.

again has been of the doj report speak to notification oversight partners there. >> going to page 9, this is all about interviews. sometimes they get mixed messaging on whether or not they can observe interviews. this is a great opportunity to make that clear. where it says that investigates may monitor either through visual observation that should be clarified to be ied and include dpa investigators as well.

going back to page 1 1, i know this is new language and any family for back on files, in the mou, it spells what standard the office uses to grant these whies? --requests. >> on page 11, the last two sentences first one starting with any request and second all requests. that explains how they request these files. so m.o. u does not, actually it does, it does in, in the evidence the management system system.

those two paragraphs, the first one from the police department perspective, we wanted to raise that to a command level. previous gang was ambiguous. we're taking that off the table. we have the visibility to make the decisions that they have made. but what happens from there is, if a request is made that the police department believes that they're requesting for privilege information, it falls back to the evidence case management. we have to declare what it is and declare the privilege and that process governors that. if it's not privileged information, we're going to give it to them. >> okay, thank you chief. going to page 14 of the red

line drafts. there is a language, it's, is that the declaration section that you would like? i think i would like to see, i cannot bind the da but sfpd should notify the dpa in writing i would like to have that. we have cases where statute of limitations have become very important. finally the paragraph, paragraph right below this, i was a little confused about this language. it says, sfpd may undertake the progress to take into custody and booking.

that's a little more confusion to me. so the fact that it's may in one and will in the others, that language is a little bit messy and could be cleaned up to make it clear. it may undertake right after another. >> can i respond to that one. so that when i respond to that one as well, but this one in particular, couple of issues that occured where we were notified in some cases we were not notified at all that an officer needed to be arrested. and the chaos and scramble was on there is a lot that goes

into arresting an officer particularly when they're on the field. it's the da's call when they're going to that call. our process is that we facilitate that. we have protocol, we have that's our choice, we can deal with mental health issues and all that. but it's really their call. they may and they may not. we just want to know what they want to do. in some of the instances that lead us to this paragraph, we didn't know until last minute and we were scramble and in one case, the officer was on duty.

and then the second sentence comes in. and circumstances as permit. >> that's how i read it. you even said, you even said if we choose to do it we will undertake. and even just adding that, would make it clear. if the da would ask the department to undertake, we'll undertake. it looks like its own sentence. i think that was why that language, it just needs what you added like an if clause there. if delegated, if sfpd. i also wanted to ask ask if the da asked, so the way it reads now, des kressing, sfpd may undertake.

and that sounds like both sides have the authority to say no. there is a circumstance where the d.a. would say, we'll do it and another also circumstance where the d.a.'s asked sfp to do it and sfpd declines. >> there is a lot of possibilities here. and i think there is some assumptions are being made that we don't know. for instance, let's say what fw that arrest and arrest on file is out of state, what if that employee is in a location where it takes more work to get. what if they're overseas. that's a discussion that has to happen. and you know, i don't want to give up the sfpd's right to say, this is the way to do this.

maybe we need to get another department involved in this. so the made for us, if it's a request that is unreasonable and inpractical, i want to reserve the right of this department to reserve that discussion. you know, that's, that's not something that we're willing to do. that's why, these things are not always black and white and they don't always play out the way we hope they play out. and that is something that i would, want to reserve the right for the department to make that assessment and have that discussion with the district attorney's office and then we can determine what the best process is. you cannot dictate that in an agreement when you don't know what you're going to face. >> i know that makes sense. i know the language that has been used and other contacts. so i think which still allows

discretion but it makes clear that you'll make all efforts. that would make that may a little clearer. i can appreciate that if they're not in the jurisdiction. want to talk about roman numeral 14, the confident dispute resolution which starts on page 15. i know you talked about this, i'm glad that there is a dispute in this mou and it was lacking in prior mous. the ask i would have here is, language explicitly noting perhaps that the commission can be a party to any confidential agreements. i think it was frustrating to myself and fellow commissioners when asking for update, it's a progress it's in progress. and that's because there was not a dispute provision and

confidential agreements were also executed. but if it's clear as the commission as the oversight body could be a party to any confidentiality, but i would like to have that if there were disputes. >> so yes, i do understand, i think where we get in and i would ask the city attorney to weigh in on that issue. i know that the commission acts as a body. so it gets us back to the same place on what is set up to be a confidential discussion about some of these issues. number one it may lead to discussions that may come before the commission. and i know we can recuse commissioners. and the full commission that really does not compromise confidentiality. what would you face in this

situation is, and let me say this very carefully. i'm not trying to point anyoningerers at anything, things were made public that really, i think there was some accuracy issues and the determination were both sides. it lead to people not wanting to have these conversations, i don't want to have a conversation about sensitive information and we're talking about cases that we, for good reason are may under the law and then the next thing we know is notice in the newspaper. where does that get us? because if that question is answered, maybe that's less of an issue.

on my mind but i think it's an issue. this, this process that was really at our requests, can, create by the attorney general took all of that in consideration. and our city attorney also on these conversations, we were trying to protect the process so vek with these delicate and sometimes heated conversations. then what is where we face, how are we going to report back to the commission on the issues that we're trying to keep confidential. i understand the concerns, i would ask that there be some trust here and the judge appointed and trust on me that i can report back to the commission what i can report. but that got a lot of quicker, we were able to have the

conversations that we were able to have. even before change in the administration. we were able to have the conversations that we had with some safety in the room that these things would be, would be when with you walk out of the door, somebody asked what you talked about. that's my take on it. that's my take. if it's this ever happens or if we have to go back to this judge on this mou, we have the environment where we can have the discussion and we can get the work done that needs to be done. >> i appreciate that, i still think, that i, i'm confident that we can workout a process, in conjunction with the city attorney's office that confidentiality could be maintained there. i also want to ask why is there

a two-year stipulatelation on the mou? >> so i can give you original, we felt these mous would need tweaking. we felt it's a natural break to at least revisit this. one thing that we learned from our ddo process sometimes if they don't get touchedcious we don't touch. it's easy to say, hey we had no incidents, let's just renew it. these things need to be revisited and that revisitization should not be because we got a dispute that made national news. it should be a process where it's done, systematically whether we have a issue or not and it gives us a chance to refresh the documents.

we may not even touch it but it forces the issue. >> thank you chief for going through the end of the woods with that language. and i hope that we can get some of the language proposed to the judge and to the counter party and hope that from i don't believe any of those should be objectionable but i, i, hope that that can be done and we can improve what i think is an mou close to i think, where it should be. >> if i would, i would like before you go to the next commissioner, address some of the issues and talk comment. and i can go point by point, in general, i feel strongly that there is a way to get to that fpd agreement outside of this agreement. we have a agreement that we have agreed to.

that the judge has recommendation for all but one. so we have a very well vetted agreement. and you know, i, you know commission is going to vote on it whether it moves forward. then we have an mou that addresses at least the issues that brought us to this point. i do understand ms. hawkins on wanting to be included because they do a charter the authority to be included. i think there is a more nisht way to get to this. and the other things as far as binding on both sides, there, and direct agreement to a dpa and the police department, are governored by the police commission but, my choice is to have or recommendation is to have agreement that's are binding on both sides. i understand the dpa wants

visibility and i understand why. however, i cannot commit and i don't think it's a good idea to commit the da and i'm not speaking for the d.a., i'm speaking for the san francisco police department and myself in terms of my professional opinion, on a document that is not about dp a, this is about what comes out. and i understand dp a gets that. we can make a real document because you have both of us and you don't have to agree that way is accountable and all of those issues. i think there is a better way to get to this. this is all about what happens in that criminal investigation. i do understand dp a, but i believe there is, more efficient way under our system, under the charter to get to that where this can be

governored the agreements westbound governored by this police commission on both sides. and we have not raised the police department, this just happened over the last 24 hours. we have not had time to raise, you know, any, any or talk about internally about what our expectations would be under this type of agreement. most is providing information but discussion when it comes to their obligation. so i just don't see a value of a document that puts all of this stuff about dpa in it and this is really about the sfpd and the da's office and the issue that brought us here that i believe has been resolved and what you have before you and there is a cleaner better way. and i don't think that would

take very long to get through the sfpd agreement. some we already have. notifications, we have strict protocols that are enforceable. we have rules on document protocols and i'm not saying that they are perfect but i do think that index and transparency around what is in these cases, gives them a leg up on us and the district attorney and i would like to see the agreements remain on this body and not with the district attorney where it's not enforceable anyway on a disagreement. that's my take on it and my opinion. and sarah and i and others have had good conversations about this. >> yeah, i think we had a conversation about that earlier

and i think my response, i want to make sure that the response is in the public too. we have two responses fpt i do think it's a belt and suspenders approach. the language does not mean that we as a commission ensure good rules to make sure that you have good access. dpa can be protected in multiple places throughout our ordinances. i think it's you know, even if it's a little bit of a belt and suspenders that strikes me as fine. i don't think that makes that change that they don't double the length of mous, i think that we can have both clearer direct tiff with the department and da as well as adding it here as well. and i also think even if it's not binding, having the role can help those in the d.a.'s office if they have control of

questioning that they're going to look at questioning on who is allowed to watch my video tape. and if it says, clearly dpa can watch that is one less fight to get dpa access to an investigation. it just makes it clearer in that sense. and i think it allows that to happen and i think it's, it allows for sort of multiple forums for those improvements to be made as well. >> and i'll stop here because i know this can be a really long back and forth and i'm not trying to make it that and please ms. hawk ins, under the current system, we have a document protocol. and the sample that was given about the video, now transparency number 1 that the video exist. dpa will get that investigation because we already have videos.

there is already a report on documents of whether or not dpa is requesting them or getting them. that currently already exist. now that video is not turned over under the current document protocol. you know, if we want to carve something out for officer involved shooting investigation and incidents covered by dpa, i think that makes sense. i just think that we have process that's really address this and i do understand, i understand where they're coming from in this and i understand where you're coming from. my objective is to get this criminal investigation mous that we had problem and i had problems with anyway and this police department had problems with, to a place where we had an agreement that the district attorney and her team and the police department and hopefully the police commission has resolved the issues.

i do believe, although i understand them. we have system that's address some of these. those need to be tightened. i'm all for that but it i think it complicates this and i'll stop there. >> i'll yield to the next person in a second but the last thing, we spoke this if this mou was really only limited to interactions between the da and pd it would be different. but it has language about administrative investigations, about dpa, you cannot do do something halfway. at the point that you decided to include dpa and reference and would necessary include dpa when they stand in the shoes of ieb we need to be complete. i think that's why i'm supporting the inclusion

exclusively because roman numeral 4 and we have reference to who gets to be in the room. if this reference in a room we're fine but the point you're referencing it, we need to be clear and previce about who needs to be in there and that includes dpa and that's where i'll end. thank you very much. >> thank you commissioner benedicto. vice president carter. >> well vice carter ober is stone is preparing. i understand it's the only one mandated to investigate oises per charter to to not have them

in the room is hard to understand why. but i'm going to turn it over to my colleague. >> great, thank you president elias. i think everybody agrees that this is a very important document and my sense, i'm not comfortable voting on it tonight given that we've only had a few days to review it. i think we would benefit from additional time to go over and it's something that we understand and comfortable with. i'm not going to get back into the details of the dpa should be included. i'll just say that for all the reasons that ms. hawk ins and mr. benedicto said it makes sense to have a global document that includes and anticipated the role that dpa will have to

play into these critical incidents. chief, just want to clarify, you agree that this commission under the new 3.01 is required to approve this document? >> acquire to what? >> under the new dgo3.1 this commission is now required to approve this document in order for it go into affect. >> yes, and i think i know that's how it's calendared. >> okay, just wanted to make sure. so question, the definition of ois in here includes and that's an page 2, includes a geographic restriction that it has to occured in san francisco but the other and i could be missing something but the other types of incidents don't include a similar jurisdiction, is there a reason for that?

>> where are you looking at commissioner? >> page two of the red line, number 1 rather definition of officer involved shooting and then, you've got for purposes of this mou, covered incidents, do not include and then number 4 it says incidents that occur outside of the board of the city of san francisco. why don't we have other incidents, in custody depth those definitions don't have a limitation. i'm curious if i'm missing something. >> okay, what the issue is here, is is not officer involved shooting is a criminal investigation. by nature, it's a criminal investigation. there is going to be a criminal

investigation. so that happens in san mateo county, if it happens some other county, that's their jurisdiction. if it's a accessible, we're going to stick to officer involved shooting. a death does not equate to a criminal investigation. in custody deaths are investigated criminally, they're looked at criminally and in customer deaths, it's the level of when somebody dies in police custody, the spir sit of this is, we believe that nr should be an independent investigation. the fact of the matter is, it turns out to be criminal, then there is a jurisdiction issue there as well. but the death itself, it's not as clear-cut as an officer involved shooting. just by nature, it's going to trigger criminal investigation.

let's say you're transporting from marin county hospital because we deal with other counties sometimes. and they have a, a apparent heart attack and die while you're on the freeway. that's a probably going to be investigated as a medical call not a criminal investigation. and that administrative investigation will take place. now if somewhere in that process, there is determined that there is criminal cult tibls that case, because it's already been investigated by the district attorneys, that will be investigated who is going to prosecute that case. on the service, on surface of these, a lot of debts some of them are medical issues that need to be looked independently, not necessarily criminal.

i think that's the contact behind that. >> i understand your comment. i just maybe suggest maybe making those clear because those jurisdiction can come up easily. and by omission it gives sense

to that regard regardless of integrity of the investigation

is carried out, it creates doubt where colleagues are so intimately involved. so, it just didn't seem structurally to accomplish most basic goal which is to inspire public confidence that these investigations will be conducted independently. so i want to raise that and then ask you a couple of specific questions. so, throughout the document, it refers to sfpd without specifying which division within the department whether it's isd whether it's referred to the hold department anyone. so why, should i, as i read this document isd gets access to everything. why should they get access to

this case. >> yeah, i think there is a couple of questions in there. >> let's start with that first, that just simple question. why should isd get access to all of this stuff where there is ans la re if there is no parallel investigation. >> so let me, let me back up a second. you did have some assumeses --assumptions that i need to address. what i heard you say, and please clarify this if i heard this correctly, i heard you say that all documents, all information is instantly handed over to sfpd that is not necessarily the case. >> this is the 10,000 foot,

we'll get about the details, but the general thrust of this document is clearly in the general course information will be shared from the da to the department subject to certain exceptions and there is five-day delay for entering into log and all of that good stuff but that's the big basic tour of what you're doing. so now i'm asking a big question. it seems to me, the only legitimate role it would play here is to conduct a parallel investigation. but if there is no parallel investigation why should they have access that the da is collecting and if there is a criminal investigation. >> if there is an parallel aisd requests documents, the prosecutor can assert a privilege, i mean or assert an object jebsing to go those

documents over. and is sfpd objects that. >> but they would not privilege. >> what is privileged or not? and this is what got us here. some things, we believe we're not privileged others believe they're privileged. some things based on the current mou that we're operating , not this new one. we didn't when we asked for it. we just didn't receive. so if there is that type of scenario where there is no isd investigation, i don't believe isd would just be asking for documents but if there is no isd investigation and the prosecutor's wants to assert that there is no reason for you to have this and we're not going to turn it over to you, there is a dispute process that we can, we can go through to

settle that situation. so i don't see that being an issue. >> let me just say, i think this is a issue what you're saying right now, what you're saying, this document does not contemplate that this sensitive will be on a need to know basis. there is only two basis for withholding the information under the definition of protected activity. one is privileged information and there is a second part that i'll ask later. but it's certainly, there is no way that the da should say, there is reason why you need this. but this document as it's written now, it's open season. this information is available to the department in an order course. and it's usually it does not say who in the department is

able to touch it. so i guess, it seems like maybe we agree, if there is no parallel investigation, isd would not need the information. and i guess my point is, this document would not permit the da to do what you just said to say, you don't need the information for any reason so i'm not going to give it to you. this document does not allow that. >> yes it does. >> well then point me to the provision. >> the provision is first thing is in this evidence case management system, all evidentary will be clear. sfpd has language in this. i'm on page 10 in the red line copy, evidence management system.

so not to read this, but protected material, those things have been defined. number 5, material should be protected the ideas must be included with the brief description and the basis for. must be set on the index. this allows the party to know, now ed privilege does protect it because there is no need to know if the da wants to assert, there is no need to assert this document. there is no need to know. >> i agree, it's not inclusive but protective status. >> i understand, and we want to have that legal discussion. >> this is not a legal

discussion on page 10 protected materials are defined. >> you cut me off can i answer the question please. >> please. >> if the da asserts that there is no need for the sfpd to have these documents, they can assert the need or right to know under number 5. and then it redisputes, they're not just going to hand it over if they believe we shouldn't have it. they can assert, you have no need to know and they can go to dispute resolution to settle that agreement. number 5 does not prevent, i understand that there is legalities to protect it. but this document does not prevent them from if we're asking for some ridiculous thing and it's investigation, there is no need for, they get to do that. my interpretation is and i

can't speak for them but i can speak for how i got here and they can do that. i believe that's there is a process for that. if they say no we're not giving it to you. we got to know, we're not giving it to you, protected or not protected. we have no process to dispute this. >> and i think the dispute resolution is welcomed, i think that's a nice edition to this. i think we're going to have to agree to disagree. when you look at protected materials, there is protected materials does not include anything about what you need to know. d.a. has no basis that's what is in black and white now.

to my bigger point, we have an agreement right now where evidence of sensitive criminal investigation to an officer is free blowing whether or not the department has any legit need to have that investigation. you've got it over. >> they can raise an objection and that is settled bit arbitrator. >> the ar traitor will then look at the definition of the protected materials. >> we don't know what the arbitrator, i know you're

working off assumptions, i understand the point but assumptions that this is free for all of the district attorney attorney's office just handing over information that we have no business having, i don't agree with that. i think that's an assumption that, you know. >> this document is replete with references of streamline and instantaneous evidence. let me ask you a different question with this same problem that exist. what is wrong with this alternate system? i'm going to throw this out there and you tell me why this is wrong. why not have an mou that has the following, role to immediately secure the crime scene and aftermath. beyond that the da will handle

the investigation of the criminal investigation, dp a will handle the administrative investigation, and to make my example simple let's make sure that there is no anselary. there does not need to be any evidence shared with the department because it's no longer conducting a criminal investigation. >> that example you just gave is not, does not take for, it

does not take a account of reality of what these investigations are. and what i mean by that is sfpd as structured right now, has to have a role in these investigations, the crime scene management, the evidence collection all of those things that the da's office currently don't have the ability to do have to be done by sfpd. sfpd have to be managed and supervisors that's clear in this mou as well. what you just suggested and offered assumes that the da's office can conduct from stick to tern including collection of evidence and all of things that go along with that. they don't have the ability to do that. that's not reality right now. so there is definitely a need to work together on these investigations. and tying that into, i'm not going to be i'm not going to go back and forth on the last

issue because i think, i stated my point there. the reason that there has to be some collaboration under this current structure infrastructure is, the da's office don't have the ability to conduct a truly independent investigation. nor does the california doj nor does the any other entity, i cannot say no other entity. there has to be some collaboration, here's the other practicality that you're not taking into account. the witnesses have to be identified, they have to be located, they have to be, you know, something has to be done to manage the witnesses while all of these things are being spun up. the notifications and response. sometimes that leads to

witnesses saying, i cannot stick around, here's my statement, we take the statement we share it. there are things that happen in these investigations that virtually make it impossible to have a truly in a sense that you're talking about, independent investigation. the da's off leading the criminal investigation was the language that was devised to address the issues fpt once they get to the scene, the criminal investigation is theirs. we direct our employees to say they direct theirs but that criminal investigation is theirs. but it does require cooperation at the scene and after the initial scene. there has to be that kind of cooperation. long story to your answer made short, is we don't have an infrastructure to do what you just suggested and i don't see that happening in the near

future, because those infrastructure resources don't exist by the district attorney's office at this time. >> sounds like you're saying there are practical barriers to making that happen in real life, you know, the da does have some staff to conduct investigation but not enough to be done. >> okay. >> witness interviews and yes, i get it. there is a lot that goes on with these investigations they don't have the infrastructure and capacity to do. >> right, let's go to the last thing, i don't want to relitigate our viewers on what the document says. i do want to ask you gep, it seems like we did agree on investigation that the isd would not need information from the da if there was no parallel

investigation going on. is that your view? >> yeah, so let me answer for the public pisd, investigative services, we talk in acronyms because we know what that means. they investigate the parallel criminal investigation. for the public, let's say there is a robbery that lead to the shooting, isd will investigate that robbery. if there is a situation and just to answer your question here, for whatever reason, there is no parallel investigation, with isd need to have that information, i cannot see a reason that the answer would be no. now, the other part of this is, the investigative team would. and there is, clearly laid out

processes for this. i, you know, and i'm sure there is scenario that could happen and maybe could have happen where there is no larsery happening. maybe this is part of your question where the person believes to have committed the parallel investigation formally known as ans larry. let's say that person is diseases, we still conduct an investigation to close that case out and make sure we think what it is it is. if there is not a crime, don't see a need for us to have any information and my, my interpretation and discussing this, the da's office could

assert that and we disagree then we go through this process. >> like you said, they would still have to hand over the information that's been used for other reasons? what checks are there within the department to make sure isd does not get ahold of it, or for that matter any other department that does not have a legit need for information is there any way that ensure that this information is on a need to know basis. yes, those investigation right side for many reasons. sorry i'm talking not close to the mic, that isd comes across when they conduct their administrative investigations. and not isd, the administrative team so if, i believe i'm

answering your question but please clarify if i'm not. they are walled off by policy, they will be pro hibting, the administration unit to sharing that information with isd, it goes the other way. isd can share with administration not vice versa for that very reason. it's a violation of policy and that system is in place and has been in place. so your question to be what assurance, one thing that we track well is who gives documents and what access is given to who. there has to be some trust that that system is working. to make sure that those walls are in place.

those systems are solid systems. at the end of the day, there is no trust in the system, you know that is an issue of why is there trust. the systems are there. >> great, thanks. and i do remember footnotes 2 and 3 about what you said about the wall. i would flag the words of the document often just refer to sfpd in a blanket way. the document itself does not always make clear who is getting it. and i understand the department's own policy about perhaps between walling off id from isd but for me from just reading this it comes as though, discriminating about who can see the information. let me ask you about our favorite provision, protected, protected materials on page 10.

so, as we've discussed protected materials can be privileged and then there is the second category so the da can decide to withhold materials when there is a security risk or risk to subsequent criminal prosecutions if disclosed. can you describe what that means in real life? it just seems a bit broad and i'm not sure what that refers to. >> page 10, protected materials definition second half of the definition. i'm going to afb mr. best to come up as well. from my point of view, from this, the da's have their right

to protect their case from jeopardy of one security risk that would damage their case. exposure to that witness would cause a life threatening situation or legitimate situation where that witness is going to be in jeopardy of not providing that the testimony that that case is dependent upon.

i'm going to give you a good example information was disclosed and ended up being murdered. that is a real issue. where there is location, threats that have been disclosed, the da's office may want to protect that person and that case can go in jeopardy. if that situation is asserted, my mind having lived through that, that is as legitimate has it comes. i don't believe this police department would argue that. but if we did, that mediator would dispute.

i don't know if you want to weigh in. >> this section was but the in there to try to address your concerns that, there is this tension in our process that has to just because of the geographic uniqueness of san francisco. but the da's office needs the a autonomy to do the investigation. administrative investigates and criminal investigators need the information to do their jobs. this was drafted to be vague and broad because there could be so many situations when the da's office feels that giving

this over, maybe a witness comes over to them is related to the suspect, the suspect officer. you can probably think of a lot of factual scenarios. and we really didn't want to take that discretion. intentionally to give the da's office. you may disagree that comes in tandom why we created processing. because we can go to this process and figure it out. and it may be one of those things where we may have to work going forward. i felt, we felt this was a better way to approach this in this situation or in this situation because i know, you guys are all of you, draft

policy in this department and you cannot drost policy for every single thing. that's the thought process behind it. >> thank you, thz helpful. and would that cover to have the information such the exam that the chief and i were discussing where there is no parallel investigation. >> not to dodge t probably i think there will never be a situation where sfpd as an entity does not have a need to know. i think they could organize that. so they can argue. you think that incompasses that. >> i think in practice that's

how it would work. >> and where does it say anything about who in the department can touch the information. >> it does not say who can dictate it, the agreement does not say that. but if something is part of an admin investigation it does not go back to isd, that is effectively a process. does the da have the right to dictate to whom things are given that does not spell that out. if somebody will always have a right. >> that's helpful, thank you. >> maybe mr. beth will weigh on this as well. >> so this section is seth the

standard by prosecutors will decide whether to institute charges criminal charges against an officer. >> what the normal standard is, i think that ordinary standard is that there is sufficient evidence where a reasonable jury could kikt a defendant. but we have a four prong test now and i don't know where this. i want to clarify whether the intent was to create a higher standard that we have for prosecuting other individuals who are suspected of committing another crime. from last mou, and the you

know, we don't set, the police department don't set the standard for prosecution that's the d.a.'s and has been language offered by d.a. that we're okay with and agree with. i don't have the first mou in front of me so i will not speculate. i cannot answer from the da's office but being from these conversations, i didn't see a need for it. >> and mr. when you're already up, let me ask a bonus question. the da has the authority to exercise discretion, this does not seem like the type of thing that can be saved or amended by

contract. i'll throw that in the hopper why the standard is setting up a different bar. >> great question, so i don't know the thought process why this was included. it's a stocker it's from the prior and i was not part of the team on that and because it was there, we left it there. it is not a higher standard, it's suppose to be a higher stand art. that's my understanding so it's not suppose to create protective for police officers, it's probably the reason why it's there and it's not me surmising.

>> thank you that was helpful. >> chief, finally what was the community efforts in relation to revicing this mou? as we all know one of the reasons that it lead doj was a series of officer shootings and killings of residents of this city. sd and that included community feedback on this process. >> we didn't have community listeninging sessions on this process. so i will that.

particularly when we had a mediator where conversations were meant to be confidential. it's not easy to have conversation where we are in a negotiated process. did i hear back from the community, regarding their sentiment yes but we didn't have working groups and all that. one of the things that we were trying to do is get a better agreement done quickly. and really this agreement between the da and the police department. in my opinion don't know if it should be that type of process. when we had the first mou that took us three years to come a

way with. and i'm going to say that we respect and believe that the process was developed, helped us get in knees in the conversations in an efficient way. it's made available to the public, the public will have a chance to weigh in on it. and it's transparent in terms of now that the document is out, we'll hear what the comments will be. there is no work groups no listening sessions, you know, just long commission meetings where we heard from many members of the public. >> i appreciate the frankness of your answer and i completely understand that the negotiations had to be private but i also think that would not preclude the department from

going out to the communities and asking them how they would like these things to be investigated, what to them what inspired confidence in law enforcement, what to do would give them a sense that these were done in a truly way. i'm going to flag two parts of the doj report. on page 5, it says we observed center on sfpd officer involved shooting. the community voice was loud and consistent in expressing that sfpd needs to be more transparent. page 147 references after referencing the mario wood shooting, says the current process, in quotes have not satisfied community expectations of transparency and accountability.

if the sfpd is to get trust it needs to address these. i do think it was incumbent in the department to follow what was a strenuous advise. i don't think we did it here. i will say, i brought community input last week and i'm bringing it up now. the reason i'm bringing it up, the department has been outspoken about the fact that it thinks that in the revision process of 9.01, the pretext policy that we have not had enough community out reach. that's by all accounts this has been the most transparent revision process. we had the community out reach that has been done.

i'm not taking any credit for that. but i have heard again and again from senior leadership that somehow we're not doing enough with 9.01. whether it is the surveillance overhaul that we discussed last week. the department does not undertake community out reach whatsoever or if they do, it's scant. and there is a double standard being applied to 9.01 versus everything else that the department does. and i just, i don't know what is the difference between 901 and all of thesed provisions where it does not seem fit. there needs to be consistent

and one standard for what is adequate community out reach and input. >> so let me respond to that. i disagree with you vigorously, i was here when we had the taizer discussions. and i'm not taking away from your efforts. it got here with 5.01 when i was interviewed for this job i followed the out reach from southern california. i'm talking about the first prevision. i was here in 1.08, i was here for the community out reach on many other policy decisions. i'm going to disagree and i have the evidence to back that up. and not all djos need that

level of input. why would we have community input in that. this is not dismissive of community. your assertion that this department is taking it seriously and wish' wash', i'm offended by this. before you got here, this work was being done. i was a part of it, i know what is being done. there is many community members, 5.17 where angela general kin and roam jones because of their community involvement, we have a biased by proxy policy or in that policy that came from the community, from those two individuals. commissioner elias was there, i'm not trying to call you out. but she was there.

community input so for you, that it's not happening, i'm offended and i'm going to argue that that is not the case. now we can always do better, yes we can. and and we will do better in terms of having systems to make sure that the community output is happening. la *z eloquently talked about the meeting today where we went over this ition. so the department is here and again, for to you tell me in this department and the members of this department that we're not doing it and wishy washy, is offensive to me because i lived here. >> thank you, i appreciate that. i don't think i used the word

wishy washy. >> my words for the interpretation. >> efforts. >> i don't agree with that. >> you just said, quite candidly that none were undertaken with the doj called out as community where community feedback were critical, this is not hyper like the dive team that you called, it was called by the united states department of justice in this accident, last week we just discussed the surveillance program where we're expanding our surveillance, again that's another policy where, it affects members of the community and again the department did not undertake any significant out reach. and i think we agree on those things. >> not entirely, let me say this, it was this police

department that reached out california department of justice torres recollect this process. and it was the department of california justice that sat down and create this process that you are, criticizing us. it was the california department of justice who replaced the u.s. doj, so this process was thoughtfully constructed by our city attorney to get us through the term oil that got us to where we are now. this was to resolve the conflict and get the mou done, and again, this is not, you know, i don't even character your words but the fact of the process we went through a

process that was vetted by california doj after, walked away from this process. so we used the resources that were available to us that by the way, we, this police department, sought out and got to keep this reform going. so community policing and community engagement and look i'll say this and you know, i don't want to go back and forth, but i will say this, community policing is serious to this department. i know we get criticized and i know we're going to get callers to make comments. we're trying to be a better department. we have processes in place, we have a commission that is serious and a police chief that is serious about this. are we there yet, and according to your comments, absolutely not. but we're trying to get there and we have evidence that we do

engage in community policing. you know, i normally don't get animated but i was here and for to you tell me that it's not accepting and we're not doing it, i cannot accept that. >> i'll end down switchcious my underlying point is there needs to be consistency when there is a need for community input and when you say it's not necessary. i think that it's used at times selectively, just as djo9.01 where we're having the most community out reach the department has raised its voice to criticize the lack of community out reach. but yet in other nair i don'ts that is a clear inconsistency.

ifng the issue of community input is being used selectively, that's my underlying point, thank you chief. >> thank you. >> just for the record to clarify, that was 5.17 in roam jones with respect to that working group, roam jones came later and when he was invited by another working group, the executive sponsor chastised the member for inviting to roam jones and it was a fight to be part of 5.17 and i think i raised this issue with you when it was happening and we discussed that and i think that's what lead me to really continuously nag you about the working group and who gets to be invited and who doesn't. and you know that i'm constantly nagging you about that. >> right. >> i would not call it nagging.

>> gently reminding you that the working group process is very arbitrary and select i have. i had a huge problem and you and i discussed it. the way that it was carried out. i want to highlight that. it is the chief of police who gets to ultimately decide which djos get a working group and which ones don't. and dodd from our conversation, i think that i made it clear to you as well to dpa that, the djos that are assigned to specific commissioners i wanted you the department and dp to reach out to the commission and ask you whether or not they wanted a working group.

while the final decision is up to you, it was very important to me that the commissioner who is assigned to that d g.o. and who is handling that djo has input in terms of whether or not a working group is going to be needed. >> that's correct. >> i want that to be clear because i don't want this to be happen where there is no clear transparency under which authority each commissioner has. >> fair enough. >> i'm going to turn it over to commissioner walker, i had a few questions but commissioner walker was on the queue. so i'm going to go after commissioner walk we are.

>> thank you, president elias. i want to comment that there is a public meeting and we're taking public comment and there is a difference between mou and djo, it includes our partner dpa. so this is sort of a a question about is it possible to include the partnership and the delegation of authority in these investigations when necessary to the different departments? by referring to djos or in footnotes because it does not necessarily, unless you're a party to the mou, it's confusing.

it makes sense to talk about it when an investigation needs to swing over and include dp a investigations in foot notes or referencing attached d g.o.s or protocol or procedure. but i do think it's important. it's confusing to me as a third party that you're not siding and the da and the police are signing i'm just going to make that comment, maybe somebody

can answer. >> commissioner benedicto raised same question and diana answered the question. can we have her address commissioner walker's question? >> good evening commissioners. well i think that the gist of it is that contract are often made with third party beneficiaries alike. so contracts can be simple. person a agrees to do something for person b in exchange for money. but the officer, the

acceptance, the offer to do something, can volve a third party. so they can be bound to do something for somebody else, does that make sense? yes, if the contract the agreement, the thing that we're talking about is including the vegds and interviews. currently it's not, currently there is a paragraph that basically where was that? on page 4 of the red line so if

we include that p d.a. is required to have interviews of a certain type beinger both parties have to agree with that. >> right now as a dpa attorney, i'm not sure i should be answering that question, that's a question that you may want to pose to your city attorney. i think generally speaking, i think commissioner benedicto said that there is no harm and no foul in including it how we enforce it. the bottom line is that, if we are, the practicality of it is

what benedicto said, it's a da investigator can pull out at the scene and say, please give us a room. and next no no, i think the da's have jurisdictional rights by thinking forward and participating those situations, i think that we will alleviate those types of problems. from a legal perspective, i don't think that there is noig that prevents us from being mentioned and incorporated into this mou from a legal perspective.

i'm not sure that that is an issue that we need to a address but the benefits far outweigh any of those issues. >> if the commission has any legal questions about this, it needs to be addressed in close session, so we would need to agendize before that. >> before i get to commissioner benedicto, i'm going to ask a few questions. >> can i just ask a comment. it may help explain how we got here. i may be suspect for that,

because i wrote a lot of this. this agreement and the two predecessor, and between the parties. and this revision process even more so with confidentiality. they have obvious interest on how these investigations operate. and also president eliases noted, they're the only party that have authorize to operate. so my thought process with this was, it is better, since they're not to this agreement to this contract, to not you know, deliane their obligation

and their rights when it's a sfpd if they were outstanding issues, sounds like operational concerns and those need to be sorted out. when i was writing this, i was not aware of those, but it sides like a side letter or another mou between two parties would fix that. but i felt that it was more differential to not drag them into through the mou when they're not a significant agreement. so there may be thoughts on that, but that's why it was worked this one. and it was not to be dismissive. >> goes back to the question how would they, ask to be part of an investigation?

>> i don't think they need to ask they have charter rights to be there. they show up and there is this question about, well the mou between the das says that internal affairs can be there. my thought was no it doesn't. dpa has the charter right to be here. so this agreement cannot exclude them from being here. i understand there is concerns maybe a way to handle that is a side agreement, another mou that really makes it clear. but, ye, they have their special party here, they're not here by contract they're here by right. it's a different basis of authority that allows them to be in the room be in the investigation.

>> do they know about the interviews? i mean that's the question, maybe something about notifying might be helpful. >> may i respond. >> who notifies us. there is really no harm or foul to linking out what our role is. we're not asking for to be signature tories necessarily although that would be nice. we do think that this m.o. u is incomplete because it ignores our presence. and as commissioner benedicto pointed out, so it should for

us, if it's addresses id preference so it should for us. we stand in the shoes of da's for instance if notice was important enough to address for the department of doj why is it not important enough for us to address. if it's not important enough is it not important for us to to be added in. i completely understand chief scott's position. and i'm not here, we're not here to say we disagree, we're just asking why not. it seems like it would be a cleaner process, there is really no harm no foul putting us in, it's not changing the insent, it's not expressing and we're describely completely describing what is going to occur so when everybody

responds, not just the people in the room right now, but the people that are follow in our footprints, let's say a year from now, that don't have this institutional knowledge they can report back and it's clear and concise and the rules are spelled out. >> okay, we need to take a five-minute break and then i'm going to come back and i have some questions and i know there are other commissioner on the queue. thank you.

>> the da myself, from our side, carol lacy, and didn't, acting assistant chief flaherty, and i believe captain coto was not there, i believe.

ana govern --gonzalez from the da's office. >> so the contract, you would agree. >> yes, a contract between two parties and oversight committee, yes. >> and as judy says that a contract is based on the four corner if it's not in the contract, we cannot consider it. >> yes. >> so earlier when the chief was saying things about assumption basic contract law would prevail which if it's not the four corner of the document, we cannot consider it, it's only four corners nft document. >> i would say that's right, but before you get me in trouble, like i said this vice president there were some that were meant to be vague but any contract should be limited to

the language of the contract and not have all sorts of sides stuffed that is is not written down, it does not exist. >> and you would agree in contracts one of the things that they teach news law school is to clear as incompassing so that you don't have the gray area where legally in the contract they can only consider what is in there. >> correct. >> and i heard earlier chief agreed with o berstone, why don't we put it in this contract so that it is clear. >> well i think that the i think it goes back to what i mentioned to vice president.

they can try envision every single thing. there are there is some vague language that is attempt to capture rare circumstances but may occur. like the unusual circumstance where there is no parallel investigation. i do think that there is room for the da so try to invoke something.

about why it was vital to have his agency which was legally mandated to investigate these types of incidents in the room when these negotiations were happening. and it $defies doj recommendations there is several of them, several findings with finding number 2, number 9 and finding number 10 which indicates or tells us that the department needs to coordinate with the dpa with these types of incidents. so i'm wondering why dpa was not brought into the room since again, they're the only entity that is legally required to

investigate these situations. another thing that the doj raises is inefficiency and the problem with having multiple agreements just like they chastise the department for having dgos and all of these supplemental regulations rather than combining all in one. >> i was trying to write down your questions, let me go back to the one of the questions. the recommendations about coordination, of these types of incidents in i gos this is technical. when the doj made the recommendations, this arrangement did not exist. part of some of the protocol that's were flushed out and notifications.

but briefings that we have incorporated into the process. there have been growing pains as we have done this but we have a process that is much much tighter thap it was when the usdoj recommendations were made. because i do think that we are making progress. why wasn't dpa was out. and at that time director henderson asked and again you heard every commission and he would say it to anyone and everyone who would listen including writing a letter to the aj, why they were not in

the room. so this agreement is about recovered incident and the information that from that. i notice the repeat from what i said early, this is primarily the reason. it could have been addressed at that time. >> that is. >> it could have been. >> technically it could have been. it was not the first time or second time and not the third time and i will say this without breaching any confidentabler, all three times it was discussed. >> okay.

including with the doj. i guess my concern that was raised during the discussion, like odpa can arrive on scene they have the ability to conduct an investigation. there has been no coordination in terms of department notifying them, notifying dpa of interviews that are taking place and things that they would be legally required to have access to that information. fact that it's not working. what you're trying to say is that we have a policy in place that allows dp access so we should not worry but i think

the problem is that that policy is not working and it's not being followed. and the one entity that is required to do this type of work is being excluded. >> yes, commissioner, president, i i don't agree with the characterization that it's not working. i know specific examples that have been sited, the video, i would not character that it's not working. i think it is working. i think it is working better than it used to work. and the agreement between sfpd and dpa about interviews and sharing of information and all that, can be addressed through a separate document. i hear the briefings and i see what is happening in the scene

and i know the process and a lot of this mou addresses, our concern with the da's office is, what flows in those information and number one identify and number two turn it over and number three we need to know why so we can have that orment. that does not impact dpa's ability to address the issues. they're at the table, they have charter authority to be at the table. let me get close to the mic so you can all hear me. and definitely, you know, i think an agreement that can be quickly done in tefrmz of what those concerns are, like the videos that or the notification once we get the notifications, that is the things, those are the things that can be handled

in a separate agreement. we have all of those things. >> but they're not would bering. >> commissioner not to be disrespectful, i don't think that's true to say they're not working. from 2017 to now, there have been incredible improvements in these cases that relationships, the sharing of information, i'm not saying it's perfect, i'm not saying we don't have from time to time, incidents like what was mentioned here. but i don't think that's an accurate statement as a matter of fact, it's not a accurate statement. i will state from what i see and hear and what dpa has brought to mia tension prior to today. >> fair enough, and i guess i'm basing on the conversation that's i've had with director henderson and it's been more than incident but i'm going to at this point, ms. rosenseen has her hand up.

i'm going turn it over to address that and if she would like to address what the chief just said if the chief just in invited. >> yeah, and ms. rosedene i'm asking the commander because he's the person doing this work and has been the last year and i can speak to his predecessor. he's available for questions and to have the discussion with mr. rosestein. >> hi. i just wanted to clarify something because i'm a little bit concerned that we are using the term contract and mou interchangably. those two concepts have distant legal meaning. it's not legally binding contract. it is used to demonstrate parties to do whatever action is necessary for a specific

incident. i wanted to put that out there for to respond to commissioner walker's question. to whole thing is to member alize agreement. so the idea that because there is only two people signing contract that a, it's contract and b, that it's not enforceable. i will differ to the city attorney. i just wanted to make sure that i had the language correct.

i do agree with the chief saying that things are not working is a strong statement. i do think things are working and things are improving. the concern is this, we're not saying that sfpd is at fault. what we're saying or da's office is at fault. sometimesed there is confusion at the scene and it's easy to point fingers because people who are not people in the room that you just discussed don't know everyone's respective roles. if there is a document that can be pulled up on somebody's phone and pointed to say, hey, here's a document that incompasses all of us and here's what it says. then there is no confusion. because what you might, what we see happen, let's say i pull it

up and it's just sfpd and the argument that i envision, i'm not saying that this is going to happen or has happened. the point of mou is to think forward the possibilitids out there. and this is a real possibility is that sfp, we say look we're entitled to be here and sfpd says, yes you're entitled to be here because of us but the da is in charge here and do you have that same contract with the da? oh you don't, there is nothing you can do. that's why, those are the reasons why of including us versus excluding us that including us the benefits far

outweigh the detriments and as everyone just said, that we are entitled to be here. why would anybody object to that. i'm not sure that the argument would come from to say that we would be mentioned in the mou and the roles and responsibilities would give a controversy if everyone agrees that our responsibilities is spelled out in the charter is my point. >> i'm disappointed to hear that dpa does not feel that we've cooperated. i've been at every covered scene for the past year and i can tell you personally that, we have i've talked to my

lieutenant and captain about contacting dpa we're very very hyper vigilant about that who is going to contact who. you're part of the conversation, it's almost like a family, we have a covered incident, who is covering dpa and i'm on the scene. and i've been on the scene where we coordinate with dpa and they share how happy they were with the way that we shared information with them and walked them through the scene and coordinated a safe avenue approach. i drove them to the scene, so i'm really disappointed to hear this. but having that, i don't have contact with dpa throughout the process. so if there is something that we can prove process let's do it. >> you obviously are diligent about contacting dpa and making sure that they're in the room

but the people underneath you that are facilitating some of the instructions are the same page is what i'm hearing. >> just one more comment. so we have the same challenges, we don't like to wait for hours, but we have to coordinate with the control. we have to make sure that the crime scene investigators get there and do their jobs before we open the scene. dpa is part of the investigation. and to keep them safe and to get them the information. so we also have challenges after the fact on getting some information. so we share that, so we have the case at the airport where we have to contact the partners so yeah, there are times we have to wait. we have to get in contact to make sure that that's clear. there are challenges to getting the information. we want information faster than

we're getting it. at in point have we said dpa can wait. >> california doj, california djo. >> thank you, commander. i agree that it's been cultable. it's not that we're waiting, it's that where they're happening when they're happening. there are efforts and i don't think it's you and it's not a blame thing. and evidence process has been complicated. multiple tiemds. >> thank you, i appreciate that. you really want to step? >> i don't know if i want to or not, but i'm with the real point.

>> i appreciate the legal distinction, i think it's the fact the same. >> thank you. >> i think for, again the issue of including or not including. if i'm just trying to make it to down point. if there are problems that need to be fixed, that's a fair, we know how difficult it is but it's a relatively easy process. if we have to go back and we have this huge omnibus agreement, we have 3, four parties who are getting

involved in this and is that really necessary when the m.o. u is pd d.a., m.o. u it does touch on the because it has to. but it's about the criminal investigations and how these are done. there is a sensible agreement. commission has full control over what eventually gets through. so, food for thought. >> i appreciate that and everyone can see, it's we're having this robust discussion because we were not in the room when this happened, right. and we were all excluded the public, the commission, dpa so we have these litany of questions that you know, understandably need to be

answered and we need clarity on. we have a pending legal question with our city attorney that we need to answer. but i appreciate your distinction and respect of judge duty. let's go to commissioner benedict o.ser. >> thank you president, i know there is--[indiscernible] at this time to make a motion to not approve mou as written at this time and direct the chief and the department to go back to the district attorney and the mediator to consider the changes that have been suggested in open session including the written changes the dpa is forthcoming and present them to the mediator and da and once that is done, return to the commission for discussion and action whatever changes might be made or none but to take the changes back and bring them back to the mediator and district attorney.

>> i'm going to ask to amend the motion to also include that if that motion passes, that the current mou be continuously extended until we get this resolved. >> i have no objection to the friendly amendment. >> at this point i will take commissioner byrne and then we'll get a second to the motion. >> thank you. >> thank you president elias, i guess i'm going to ask mr. bets back up. first off, i want to talk about how we ended up here. we ended up here over six months ago because an mou was canceled. by the chief because of the concerns among other things like cooperation between the district attorney of san francisco and the san francisco police department.

tonight we heard about dpa's objections of not being in the room and this the discussion went on between cooperation and dpa and dpa and cooperation on other investigations which have nothing to do with the mou. so there is clearly a concern there. but those concerns should be addressed separately because we have jurisdiction over dpa and san francisco police department. but mr. bets, we do not have any jurisdiction over the san francisco district attorney, is that correct? >> correct. >> and is it fair to say that it was an arm's length negotiation between the san

francisco district attorney and the san francisco police department? >> in the sense that it was, define arm's length. i'm going to say yes or no and get in trouble. >> tonight we've got the pureless case and mr. paul graph between vagueness which is peerless that english case from the 19th century and this direct resulting good ol' ms. paul graph. but anyway, getting to the next point vice president has brought up issue, but those would be issues that the district attorney would raise. i know the negotiations are private between you. so my concern is, there is an

election coming up. we may have a district attorney in the new year and what we have now, what the motion that they just made is clearly flawed. it didn't work, it caused the police chief with all due respect to take action and cancel that thing rather abruptly, if i remember correctly. between the police department and the district attorney in the prosecution. what i do know is, the jury came back with a not guilty verdict. so, i'm going to make a motion that that we adopt this for three months that it goes to

the poa because it involvesed their working conditions, because it's clearly better because what is in the thing is that arbitration clause. and the reason that we're here is because there was no arbitration clause when the chief abruptly canceled the thing. now there is an ability if we let this thing go through for a few months, where if god forbid another police officer gets involved in an officer involved shooting and the da has to come out and investigate, and the tension that has existed. at least there is means of arbitrary. my big concern is what we're going to end up happening if the motion that commissioner brought forward and i agree that there are flaws in the agreement, if there is another incident.

we can end up in the same situation that we had six months ago. and if we put, if we put this flawed thing in, and i greed it's flawed, i'm not going to sit here and defend every aspect of it. i'm not going to, with all due respect to my learneded friend, the points were points that the da did not seem to be important. and it's clear that the dpa has a role and a major role. but, we don't, the da does not have jurisdiction over the dpa. it's something that needs to be

resolved once and for all. and that way, when the new district attorney if there is a new one comes in in january, they're in a position where they're not bound bit thing maybe a for a few weeks. we've got an arbitration clause that from the sense of commission i get, is way better than what existed before. and then we have the ability to fix the thing. to get the community out reach. but to go on and with all due respect to ms. jenkins office and the chief's office, would commissioner benedicto brought up at the last meeting, where is it? where is the new mou?

and yeah, we've been waiting too long. we have been waiting too long. and what we need to do is do something tonight to show the public that we're going to do something we're going to deal with the timely but only put it in to get the input to fix it so we have a better document. but, and i, with all due respect disagreeing with saying let's keep the more flawed mou in while we wait for pefntion. this is the real world there is one prosecution that failed last summer. we don't need another prosecution to fail and we don't need sniping to say it was the police department's dault, it was the da's fault

and they come left and right. we don't need that, we need something better than what we have now. and though this is flawed, and i'm not going to defend bits and pieces, yes the old one says, about the standard and yet they use the word should, who cares, it is not shall or will so you should, maybe you shouldn't. so yeah, we can sit there, i learneded friends some of the lawyers are much better lawyers than me but to go on the way we are and not do anything, is wrong. we owe it to the city and county of san francisco to act decisively but to limit the length of time. so i make a motion two fold, number 1, that the department police department meet to iron aon agreement and report to us

within 45 days as to their complaints of not having access as i mentioned about the witnesses, the stuff we heard tonight which a lot does not relate to this mou. and the second part of the motion that we move this to go because we're stuck having to deal with the poa that they go for the advise and consent and that last until the new da would be sworn in at the beginning of january and i don't know who the d.a. will be or will it be the same one? and that last until the 15th of february so that the da can then decide what they want to do. and we can show the people that yes we're going to do something, yes we want to make the document better but it's clear that this document is a lot better than the document

that we, that they want to continue. that a chillies heel, the flaw and even though this is flawed we need to act on it so we can avoid problem. so i make that motion, i don't know whether i'm going to get a second but it's up to the president and how we want to proceed. >> passion speech. >> can i interject for a second. i just need to clarify that any motion to adopt is subject to meet and confer. so commissioner byrne your motion to have to be clarified to meet. >> procedurally, we need to

move to commissioner byrne's motion. we have a motion by commissioner benedicto your name was in the queue was there anything you want to add. >> if pick respond thank you commissioner byrne for making those comments. we shared an impatience through this process. i asked the chief as weekly report every week since my first week on the commission we were on the mou, i just want to make clear that if the commission was not involved in any earlier point in this process. if that were the case. this is the first time that the oversight body of this department had a chance to review it and i believe between 4 and six continuance. this is one that we're asking

for to make these changes. i agree that no document is perfect and i would not i'm not trying to say to perfect enemy of the good. i think we have a responsibility that if this toment to not let that be the enemy. i reject the idea that it's just a take it or leave it. thank you. >> thank you. >> may i spobd. --respond. >> sure. >> what i'm proposing is just an interim thing. because i think you would agree that that arbitration clause is critical. and we don't have one now. so if we vote to extend t you would agree we have no arbitration clause, so what happens was it march or april of this year.

there is nothing to stop it again. because we're not adopt, this is not going to be the final thing. but it's the first thing that has been brought to us, it's manifested better than what it was before. i plead with you that that is what we should do. not accept it, not say hey we're going to give them a blank check. we're not going to give the san francisco police department a blank check. what i'm proposing to do is give them a check until february 15th, with an arbitration clause. so that if there is an officer involved shooting in the next few months, we have a better mechanism to deal with it than the mechanism that exist today. that's all, it will give us four months, five months to

deal to deal with the issues that have been rightfully brought up by you commissioner and by vice president oberstone but if we sit here we're going to be a nice debate club for the next month and maybe we need to fix this and that. instead we have something that has a definite knit expiration date, that has definitely definitely better than what is in the other one. >> thank you. vice president carter oberstone. >> so, you know, i appreciate the argument that commissioner byrne has made. and the vigor of those arguments and i agree this is attorney for us to get this right.

it sounds like though the most important reason to provisional lea proof the new mou is because of the mandatory resolution provision. and i think what i hope alleviates some of your concerns while this document does require it and the old document did not, there is nothing stopping the parties to submit resolution. and they've already shown a willingness to do so over a number of months to remain at the bargaining time and time again and to respect the the rules of the mediator. i don't think that is the reason to approve this new document. as commissioner benedicto said, they made an ex clues from the negotiation process. and i understand there is reasons to do that. but now, i don't think it's

appropriate to jam the commission up at the 11th and expect us to pass something of this significant after reviewing it a couple of days and already identifying some serious flaws. so for that reason i'm going to second commissioner benedicto's motion. >> may i respond. >> let's take the vote. i think commissioner benedicto is in the queue. >> i would like to say if procedurally, we can approve it. the da would have to agree to a three-month period directing them to do a 3-month directional period. yonds if that's, if that's necessarily workable as. >> well, if i'm going to respond to both of you.

number 1, that's something that the da can make up their mind in 5 to 10 minutes as opposed to changes. so it's an up or down quickly. and in response to vice president, united states prides itself to have a written constitution so there is something. what you're proposing is something that came to the british conclusion which is unwritten and we're all going to act in good faith and we're not going to have that problem. and without getting too esoteric the unwritten constitution blew up in australia about 40 years ago when the attorney general fired. though the operators are operating in good faith, the

constitutional cries when you have an unwritten constitution and i'm sorry about being esoteric about what happened in australia but the queens in australia turned around when they could not agree on budget and said to the prime minister, you're fired. isn't it better to have something in writing at least in the interim that's my only point. and i'm sure the parties acted in good point but there was a lot of bad faith after tha. it's fluid, i agree with the commissioner it will come back to us, we'll be back in two weeks, it will be an up or down. it gives the new district attorney and there may be a new district attorney an

opportunity to say, we're not behind the new district attorney because what ms. jenkins with the two year is binding something that could be a new district attorney. again, i want to be practical. and i want something in writing that the parties can rely on. i don't want it long because it's flawed. and that's why i'm pleading with it, i think we'll send a message to san francisco that yes we care and yes you're right. what they brought to us on friday is being rammed down our throats tonight. what i'm saying, is yes we're prepared to be stuck with this for a few but let's fix it because this document is way better than what exist before. and i don't want to rely on good faith. because they reacted on the good faith before.

if i get brain working quickly, there are other examples and then the whole thing blew up. i want it in writing. thank you. >> thank you, no worries. so we have a motion on the floor, commissioner benedicto i amended the motion to include the last portion, vice president second the motion and i assume you're seconding the amendment as well? >> yes, second the motion as mended. >> can you read the motion. >> sure. >> the motion to not approve the mou as written at this time to go back to the district attorney to consider the changes tonight including changes to accountable and present them to the da and mediator and once that is done return to the commission for discussion and action and continue to extend the existing mou until such a final mou can

be approved. >> we have a second. and just so the commission is aware and i think commissioner byrne made a great point. if this motion passes, i'll be agendizing this motion at the next commission meeting both in open and closed seconding meeting >> >> commissioner i need to interject so the portion of the motion that moves to extend the exist ing mou, is not agendized so that is beyond the scope of what can be voted on. you can indicate that you would like to chief to do that, but it's not properly agendized. >> the chief has been extending it so far, but i'm confident that we have expressed that we

don't want anybody operating without an mou, and you agree that you never want to operate with an mou. >> we don't want to wait forever. >> so as the motion, vice president are you going to second. >> second the orng motion. >> take roll. >> those that would like to make comment online 8, approach the podium offer press star-3. good evening caller you have two minutes. >> speaker: yes, i'm just calling i'm going to make it very quick. i'm calling to support the m oui and if you don't support it, at least support what commissioner byrne has just

proposed. it makes sense, we're getting tired of listening to you the commissioners, it's time that we work together and not against each other. thank you. >> good evening caller you have two minutes. >> speaker: yeah i wanted to support the mou, i understand that pa jenkins and the chief spent a significant amount of time coming to an agreement and getting this in front of the commission. so i believe it was former president obama who said that, better is good. even if you get a 20% improvement in something, that's a win. >> good evening caller you have two minutes.

>> speaker: i'm ses knee and i'm calling to support the support for jenkins and new mou that they have collaborated on. if you have productive workers that--this mou should be supported by this commission. and the people who executed it can be trusted. i've always been supporter of chief scott. it's clear that jenkin respect for the law and process and our police officers has restored the trust between her office and sfpd thank god. the people of san francisco have made it clear that we care and value our police officers. we want them protected and respected and allowed to do their job.

we expect due process in our criminal justice system and now chief scott and jenkins we are getting that. for a group that professes that they care about public comment, you did--supported attitude but the nature of this meeting tells me i cannot. you should all--[indiscernible] >> good evening caller you have two minutes. >> speaker: good morning this is gloria from district 10 as i'm speaking as an individual. i support the mou draft. i'm concerned that during the recall season this mou became an issue.

i'm even more concern that da election this is being pushed through. and the high possibility of us having a new da elected in a few weeks that we're taking chances of mou shifting and we can end up here again. ironically the interim da has pushed the case the keito has been pushed back and this has been pushed back as well that the timing of this possible action is not politically motivated. let's remember if it was not for the public, these investigations would not be focused on. finally i'm concerned about officers that may be willing to speak to the da's office where people may be discouraged from doing so because document sharing is track, word of mouth is not. thank you.

>> good evening, caller you have two minutes. >> speaker: this is david erickson from district 1. i don't think the mou is ready to be approved. we know that based on sap. two terms and condition requires person to go to the hospital or supervisory evaluation to trigger the investigation. we're going to the, with regard to body worn cameras that needs.

they would not cover in my reading cause of force, that needs to be addressed. the first carter oberstone brought it tup, i sent a note to the police commission with 8 concerns, the only response was from chief scott none of the commissioners responded. so please try touting that as. and having this discussion, meant the community involvement was being, was being received by commission, that's just ridiculous. that bar is low, that this is how you go with getting community engagement in this type of thing. it has to be bert, thank you.

>> good evening, you have two minutes. caller you have two minutes. >> speaker: hello. can you hear me. i'm trying to support the resident of very las questions, i support the mou, we have heard the previous one. didn't meet the expectations and really needs our da and our police department work together. i don't know who you guys are, but you cannot hold the residents of san francisco based on your preference. it's time to move on for the well being of all san francisco. thank you. >> good evening, caller you have two minutes. >> good evening, i'm just

calling in to give my support to the mou that was drafted by the da per jenkins and chief scott. got to get san francisco moving in the right direction. thank you for your time. >> good evening, caller you have two minutes. >> speaker: yeah, good evening commissioner this is paulina. so look the mou is well thought out in the current form. i just da jenkins and chief scott and i appreciate their work together. the prior mou had a lot of gray area which resulted in many conflicts while this is clearer. approval is critical to the unified working relationship. so, you know, just please stop

messing around, approve this as is, and let's move on from here in a positive direction. thank you. >> good evening, caller you have two minutes. >> speaker: hello i'm dr. mccolin stock, chief scott thank you for your work i really appreciate it. i support mou and also investigations for police misconduct i'm in support of the mou, thank you. >> good evening, caller you have two minutes. >> speaker: good evening i'm jan and just briefly, for the well being of all san franciscoians of course we should approve the mou as written and not put it off for bogus concerns. unlike last year, there is now trust between the office of da and police department thank god

trusted, professionals can do their job. support this mou now, thank you so much. >> president elias this is the end of public comment. >> thank you, roll call. >> clerk: on motion to reject the mou for meet and confer, commissioner walker. >> no. >> benedicto. >> yes. >> commissioner yanez. >> yes. >> commissioner byrne. >> no. >> commissioner yee. >> no. >> commissioner yee is no. >> vice president. >> yes. >> and president elias is yes. >> you have four yeses. >> thank you. next item. line item number 9. >> i have a motion. >> you're right, you're right.

i apologize for interrupting, i appreciate it. you made a motion it was a two-part motion, i think the second part of your part motion is moot, let me finish with the respect to the meet and confer about the items that were discussed and report back within 45 days. >> yes. >> okay, so that's the motion that we'll take since the second part of your motion is moot, do you have a second on that motion? okay. >> second. >> sergeant, do we need public comment again. >> can we get public comment and then we'll take a roll call vote. >> for members of the public that would like to make a comment please press star-3 now or approach the podium. good evening, caller you have two minutes. caller you have two minutes. >> speaker: hello, hi this is lilly hill i'm calling in

support mou, i believe that that's best way forward to move to help solve with the public safety issues is that the district attorney's office and the police department work together and collaborative and it's clear here that we have a solution by votes and police chief scott and i have always been a big fan of both of them. that's the best way for our city to move forward and get things done. thank you very much. >> good evening, caller you have two minutes. >> hi there, david erickson district 1, i want to voice my opinion that we should not move forward with the m oui, this is the first time that it's been put bft commission. for the reasons i stated earlier, and the bias way policing is done in the black

community, this is not ready to go forward. thank you. >> good evening, caller you have two minutes. >> white guy talk about bias in san francisco, what are you doing you unelected bureaucrat. the police department approve it get out of the way and resign. i'm a born and raised san franciscoians i've had enough of you dumb progressive, resign and pass the mou, and get rid of all you losers to hate on the cops, get a life. you hate them until you need them. >> and president, that is the end of public comment. on commissioner byrne's motion commissioner walker. >> yes. >> commissioner walker. >> yes. >> benedicto. >> yes.

>> commission he yanez. >> yes. >> commissioner yanez. >> byrne. >> yes. >> commissioner e. >> yes. >> invite president yes. >> and president >> yes. you have 7 yeses. >> great. >> at the point of order, madam president, mr. prean da since we didn't vote on extending the mou, does that make my motion still valid about approving the mou? >> because, we couldn't vote to extend the mou, so the part of my motion to a document the new mou to february 15 is distinct from the other other motion because we couldn't vote. the chief gave us assurances but the result is there is been no vote and i would like to make the record clear as to

what this commission is doing tonight. and this and i believe my motion is distinct because it can't rule on the extension. can we, can you tell us whether or not we can have a vote on this? >> commissioner byrne, can you please clarify. so you're referring to the portion of your motion that was to provisional lea dopt the mou. >> correct. >> at this point that motion was moot was the motion adopting it rejecting it. so if the mou has been rejected, the motion to adopt will have no legal affect. >> thank you, mr. miranda. thank you madam president. >> thank you. next item. >> line item 9, presentation of open and close cases for second quarter discussion.

as required by commissioner 97.4, quarter with the type of ied investigations. outcome of the completing investigation includes the number of cases sustained and dismissed. >> okay, good evening, everyone, commissioner president, vice president. commissioners, chief scott and chief of staff, i'm reading your sign. okay, so i'm commander of the office and tonight i'm going to present to you open and close cases for the first and second quarter of 2022 by the internal division. i'm going to cover january to june 2022. all right, sorry. it is, it's 30 slides but most are one data point and this is going to go fast. the first slide is a month to

month comparison and it's l also a year to year. it's a monthly of open and close cases same time period this year and last year. this is just not indicating of our work flow and i work for out liars and they're really isn't much to move on to speak further on this slide. okay, let's get into the open cases for iad if the first quarter of 2022. 59 cases open during that period of time. during the same time period we closed 2 cases, so 577 --57 remained open and two closed. the second is the case type. so of those cases, 35 were from

iad so directly from iad20 referred by dpa and the other, referred by, dpa after a sustained finding to be exact. and forward refer to iad there is a distinction between our sworn staff and professional staff. so there were four of those or for off duty misconduct. okay, let's talk about allegation type fm of those 59 cases, there were 59 allegations of neglected duty. 26 of unbecoming officer, 9 administrative investigation and 9 of conduct unbecoming of professional staff. next we'll talk about member classification or what distinction and professional staff.

of those complaints that we investigated, 49 were sworn staff, 10 from professional staff regarding professional staff. i'm going to move into closed cases for the same quaert. and we're going to discuss findings in those 46 cases that were 143 allegations closed by internal affairs division. 37 we the decision was proper conduct, 27 insufficient evidence and i will not read you the rest chart. okay, what actions did we take. 88 the action was no further action. so for instance, those cases might be unfounded or proper conduct would be the category set under no further action. and kind of, talk about the

ones that, has the highest. 16 resulted in reprimand and 7 results in suspension, and 9 of of the members retired during this time period, 8 of the members resigned. so of those 46 case that's we closed what was the source of those cases? of those cases that we closed 36 were generated from the internal division. 10 from dpa that were referred to us after they obtained a sustained finding. recommend classification under those 46 cases, 137 sworn, 13 professional staff, two reserve and one is unknown that means we were not able to identify who that member was.

okay and this is new, this is different from the other presentation but let's talk about the race of the members of those 46 cases closed by internal affairs division. 59 were white, 32 asian, 25 hispanic, 17 black and ten unknown so that that is demographic by race. the same break down by generaleder, 98 of those male, 41 female and 4 are unknown. okay i'm going to go for the same presentation for the second quarter of 2022. we'll start with open cases, 69 open cases, three were closed in the same quarter. how did we get those cases?

45 generated directly to internal affairs. 24 differed, after they obtained a sustained finding. type of allegations, the highest number, the trend is neglected duty or neglect of duty, 54 for were for conduct unbecoming officer. and 11 conduct unbecoming of professional staff. i'll finish that slide, 7 for unnecessary force, 6 unwarranted action, 6 for administrative investigations. member classification once again 187 of those allegations were for sworn members, 24 for professional staff and 3 unknown. second quarter of 2022, let's

talk about closed cases. so of those 51 cases or 182 allegations that were investigated by intern a affairs division. from those, we had 71 findings of unsufficient evidence, 15 proper conduct, 12 were in policy, 4 not in policy, 3 result in training failure two policy failures. actions taken in the 51 cases, no further actions in 1 19. 13 resulted in suspension, 12 in admonishment, in terminated, those were the highest numbers for that quarter: so source of the close cases, how did those arrange nature. 32 were from internal affairs

nine from sustainability, i'm being very repeat tick, this presentation is repetitive. member of the 51 cases 146 of the allegations were for sworn members for 36 professional staff. okay the race of the members in the second quarter of the 51 cases in the 152 cases, were for white officers, 49 *f them for asian, 34 for hispanic, 17 for black, 9 were unknown and one was american indian. let's talk about the gender 145 against a male officer, 29 female officer, 8 unknown. i'm going to pause there because the next two slides are

for a different topic. >> page 7 and for quarter one and quarter two have similar findings in internal with neglected duty being the highest category of complaints which is similar to what dp a has been rother. so i'm wondering what the department is doing to address that situation. it appears to be both coming from or the stats are consistent. >> sure with our findings there is a discipline portion so that sends a message that this is not okay. that we take it seriously and

discipline is significant. generally patrol that's the most exposure, so we have conversations with the command staff and the captains to let them know about these trends. so talk about the trends themselves and take corrective actions meaning training sharing what the allegations are, counseling trying to figure out why officers why there is, what results in neglected duty to try to mitigate that. there is no one answer, it's something that we're trying to tackle. this was discussed in the quarterly review board meeting also. this these statistics are sent to our station captains to be addressed with the officers in, and more needs to be done. and this trend needs to stop.

>> yeah, i was going to ask because i know during the disciplinary review board, that the issue did come up and some of the solutions were, i'm not sure if dpa is continuing to do this but send ising dpa to educate officers on these topics as well is that still being done. >> that is being done. thank you for bringing that up and that has begun. i think it's diana and rosestein and internal affairs. this has been a topic there is been conversation individual conversations. the majority of these are issues out of operation bureau and deputy is sullivan so there is a definitely a command emphasis.

and i'll say this, we did the presentation on morale and i said this in a presentation, i'll reiterate we had to tie in how sometimes morale can be a contributing factor to how people do their jobs. i know it's important to this commission to this police department and extremely important to me to all wrap that end to this conversation as we figure outweighs to boost the morale of our officers. that we factor in its not a perfect science in trying to determine that. but there are some connections as we see that improve, i'll see that we'll see an adverse relationship. >> i think those are great starts and i would implore you

to come wup additional solutions to address these allegations. like i said doegt the department and dpa have indicated that the problem as well as various articles that we read about sort of that, that community has been really upset about. okay. >> yeah as the chief we expect the officers to do their jobs. so we'll do everything we can to make that happen and give the them ability to do that. that's service. >> it's important to know that if there are difficulties that you let us know that we're priced and there is a policy decisions or policy that we can implement that would help officers to do that, i think it's important for us to know. >> absolutely thank you. >> commissioner benedicto. >> i have a question about the data. it may be something i'm missing.

looking at the 2022 slide 23, 11 no further actions. going back to the slide before that, it would seem to me that the no further actions would result from those where there was unsufficient evidence or proper conductor in policy. when i add the four categories together, i get 115, am i missing a category. is it a case where there are other circumstances where no further action would be accounts for that difference. >> i would include failure that we would corrective action by looking at what new training was given. usually it's, we've identified something every case is different.

there was a training failure, he should have been trained better. we talk about. >> that would show up in no further action as opposed to no retraining. >> no further action means no further disciplinary action. but we may require training. it may be revamping and creating new training. that's all. >> commissioner walker. >> thank you. thank you for this, i do have a question it's a another question about the about neglect of duty. i think i asked this when dpa was presenting to us. what type of things are included in there.

there is a lot of issues that the beat officers have to deal with around mental health and homeless, people who may be suffering from drug overdoses and what not. we have not gun given the authority. i think that the public is, they've made it known to me, i think they probably made it known to everybody that they're not, happy with how things are in our street. it would be helpful to know what is in there. it's one of the things that we're working on and community groups helping out in the

streets that it may be, training cross training with those groups, the ambassador groups that can be specials all of that. and i mean even, even i've heard people who own stores who are saying that the police are not staying overnight watching after a break in. that really is not the jurisdiction, is that included in the neglect of duty, those complaints? >> neglect of duty is really encompasses a lo of things. if they document it and take the proper action. sometimes they take, partial action and other times they just make the wrong decision

and do not take action. and then, there is discipline portion too so it's, it's not just retraining, there is that also sends a message that we expect you to do your duty. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner yanez is up, can i ask a quick follow-up question. one of the questions i had if we already been providing training, perhaps there is new training or other types of

training that may be more beneficial to the officers. have we looped in the trainer? >> captain harvey. >> yes. >> has he been consulted to provide a way a different type of training or something that maybe. >> that's something that we'll do internally and a lot of, i keep referring to the drv but much of what, so that's actually a good example. so when we identify something through dpa and the commission, that could be a training issue. we automatically reach out to training tom harvey. discuss what we explain exactly what is going o and develop the training plan to directly address and that has been done. we're still getting more. >> add it to your department. >>--he's a huge asset to your department.

>> absolutely. >> commissioner yanez. sorry. >> thank you. president elias, just two quick procedure questions. to kind of address or inquire about the morale and the retention challenges that the department has faced and obviously workforce, environment and how we support officers is important fm when people resign or retire is there an exit interview process that take place? >> yes, that is done through staff services and it's voluntary so we don't mandate it. >> do you have any idea of how many of those, i think there were like, 12 that resigned as a result of maybe this of

process, do they end up of other departments, i heard that often that our officers are being poached because we're making the job too tough for them. is that information tracked. >> i don't know the numbers and i have not looked at the data specifically so i cannot tell you exactly. some of it does coincide with their natural service retirement also. but that's, i think what you're saying is an important question and i'll inquire about what staff services knows. i know that they do keep that data and they do have biweekly meetings where they show that data with our assistant chiefs. >> yes, if i can add. it is tracked commissioner yanez so we have that data and we, and the exit interview we're able to, we're able to obtain

that information particularly if we get a request from another agencies about background or about, discipline and things like that. so we're able to get that information through a number of sources. >> and that's one of the reasons i ask. we hear that they end up in other departments. but ultimately how do we use that feedback to inform our retention efforts? how do we improve our training efforts based on what we're trained that end up saying i've had enough for whatever reason that they make, that determination for themselves. it would be helpful maybe in some of these reports to include maybe at the end of the year what is the outcome and the findings and pattern of what people are, leaving the department so we can hold on to them a little bit longer if they're performing well. >> thank you.

>> to that point, i want patrol to know that. and it affects officers for the rest of their career. whether they agree or disagree, they carry that with them. even when the suspension is over whatever the discipline outcome is, it's a big deal and we look at it like a big deal. >> and i would add that discipline is essential in bringing things to light. also raise these things and improve performance overall in the long term right. so thank you for that. >> the goal is to get, you know, improvements in performance.

>> hey, thank you very much vice president carter. my question would be regarding the annual policy rollouts and folks, many that shows up in improper conduct. do you focus on targ get universe where some of the improper conducts that do come up, reinforce to the members. >> yeah, i think through the drb especially when there are cases where improper conduct if we feel that there is something that we can do as a department as a city to improve the process for the officers, we will. so yeah, we, has with all the the allegations we take them seriously and part of the process is for a solution not just go out and discipline to

the officers. >> so you have annual refresher? regarding the policies that you guys have, right? >> yeah, the drb is quarterly so we do that four times a year. it's on going, as we look at cases we have knows discussions on particular cases. >> thank you very much, sir commander. >> thank you. >> commissioner yee, i would invite you to one of our drb meetings. okay, you want to continue? >> sure. >> but you don't get new ten minutes. >> two slides. >> so this is regarding the the cases that are pending chief's hearing and we want to talk about the reasons for the delays and i actually want to

talk about some changes that have been implemented that should improve the process. the named officer, those schedules those five schedules have to be coordinated and she shared with me i think i shared in the past of the 5 generally one will ask for a continuance which caused rescheduling of five persons not just one.

i have to say that it's been a year since covid but i think covid caused quite a delay and backlog that we're unwinding right now. we're on turbo mode to try to get these cases resolved while we have this opportunity. let's talk about the revisions and modifications that we've implemented now. i'm thankful for the chief because the chief made some of these suggestions from his experience working in risk management. i'm going to ignore that. so instead of trying to coordinate we're actually going to issue a date.

we have to prioritize that meeting. we're going to ask that they formalize that and it will go through our office. our plan is to only grant one extension. we have process scheduled nine hearings to be done within the next two months. we hope to schedule more. it says the process goes in affect november first but we've already implemented it. so i think that is going to be a vas improvement. the other thing we're just prioritizing this in the office. so, on the next update you should see quite a bit more.

i'll end there for questions. >> first of all i want to ask you for adding these two slides and i want to thank you for being transparent in this process, instead of shying away that there is 96 ending, i tackled and i appreciate that first and for most. i'm very happy that there are new rules that are in place or suggestion to expedite this process. my question is, you said that the plan is now to grant one continuance is it going fob based on good cause. >> that's why we're going to ask the reason formerly. >> i think it may be helpful, i've been working with the city attorney for disciplinary and i would hem recommend that you touch base with the city attorney. it would be beneficial to streamline and sort of take some of the language that the

commission is plans on using for the discipline cases. and current procedures that we have in place with an example is the granting the continuance the current rules say that the continuance would be based on that good cause and that way it would number the continuance. and we want to be consistent across the board even though these are two different areas with the commission hearing. i think procedure alley, some of the rules are the same because even though the chief hearing there is no commission, it's in front of a chief but i think that the sort of evidentury rules in terms of how they're conducted. right chief? >> that's correct. >> i would suggest chief to rev

out to the city attorney, they did a an amazing job in drafting these. that would be something that i would suggest no need to reinvent the rules and use rules that have been in place. >> definitely look into that and i'm sure that we'll find nor efficiencies as we make this priority. >> i understand that now is the continuances the whether to grant a continuance go through you so you'll be responsible. >> yes, that's exactly what the direct process. >> so when director tells us that there is 120 backed up, we're going to bring you to the mike. >> well i'm hoping that does not happen. >> anyone else, i don't see anything on the queue. >> have a great even. >> sergeant. >> more members of the public who would like to make a public

comment on the item line 9, please approach the podium or press star-3.

is r. my name is debra alvarez rodriguez. i'm the deputy director in san

francisco. my background is one in which i have spent the entirety of my life committed to finding solution to poverty and addressing the issues of inequity so people and communities can have accesses to resources and financial freedom. one thing true anode dear to my heart was the power of business ownership in creating pathways to financial freedom. we have still in infancy. we had over 100 entrepreneurs come and start their businesses. some are food trucks. some are restaurants. some are in farmer's markets and so farther. that's an incredible legacy and record to build upon. this was the perfect opportunity for me to come back home, you know, come back to the neighborhood and take my skills and networks and resources and put it backseat

in service of the community. given everything with racial reckoning and pandemic it was time for me and everyone else that had the opportunity to leave and get educated to come back home. we have a opportunity to grow our impact in terms of the number of people we serve and how we serve them. we grow our impact in taking the money we make with our entrepreneurs and circulate those resources back interview the community for community development. the third thing is we have a opportunity to have an impact on public policy in terms of the policies and practices the district has been notorious about interms of inequities. all of those are just the beginning of what is possible in terms of growth and

impact. ♪ [ music ] ♪♪ it. >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their shop & dine in the 49 within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services in the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so we're will you shop & dine in the 49 chinatown has to be one the best unique shopping areas in san francisco that is color fulfill and safe each vegetation and

seafood and find everything in chinatown the walk shop in chinatown welcome to jason dessert i'm the fifth generation of candy in san francisco still that serves 2000 district in the chinatown in the past it was the tradition and my family was the royal chef in the pot pals that's why we learned this stuff and moved from here to have dragon candy i want people to know that is art we will explain a walk and they can't walk in and out it is different techniques from stir frying to smoking to steaming and they do show of. >> beer a royalty for the age

berry up to now not people know that especially the toughest they think this is - i really appreciate they love this art. >> from the cantonese to the hypomania and we have hot pots we have all of the cuisines of china in our chinatown you don't have to go far. >> small business is important to our neighborhood because if we really make a lot of people lives better more people get a job here not just a big firm. >> you don't have to go anywhere else we have pocketed of great neighborhoods haul have all have their own uniqueness. >> san francisco has to all

>> working with kids, they keep you young. they keep you on your tones -- on your toes. >> teaching them, at the same time, us learning from them, everything is fulfilling. >> ready? go. [♪♪♪] >> we really wanted to find a way to support women entrepreneurs in particular in san francisco. it was very important for the mayor, as well as the safety support the dreams that people want to realize, and provide them with an opportunity to receive funding to support improvements for their business so they could grow and thrive in their neighborhoods and in their industry. >> three, two, one! >> because i am one of the

consultants for two nonprofits here for entrepreneurship, i knew about the grand through the renaissance entrepreneur center, and through the small business development center. i thought they were going to be perfect candidate because of their strong values in the community. they really give back to the neighborhood. they are from this neighborhood, and they care about the kids in the community here. >> when molly -- molly first told us about the grant because she works with small businesses. she has been a tremendous help for us here. she brought us to the attention of the grand just because a lot of things here were outdated, and need to be up-to-date and redone totally. >> hands in front. recite the creed. >> my oldest is jt, he is seven, and my youngest is ryan, he is almost six. it instills discipline and the boys, but they show a lot of care. we think it is great.

the moves are fantastic. the women both are great teachers. >> what is the next one? >> my son goes to fd k. he has been attending for about two years now. they also have a summer program, and last summer was our first year participating in it. they took the kids everywhere around san francisco. this year, owner talking about placing them in summer camps, all he wanted to do was spend the entire summer with them. >> he has strong women in his life, so he really appreciates it. i think that carries through and i appreciate the fact that there are more strong women in the world like that. >> i met d'andrea 25 years ago, and we met through our interest in karate. our professor started on cortland years ago, so we grew

up here at this location, we out -- he outgrew the space and he moved ten years later. he decided to reopen this location after he moved. initially, i came back to say, hey, because it might have been 15 years since i even put on a uniform. my business partner was here basically by herself, and the person she was supposed to run the studio with said great, you are here, i started new -- nursing school so you can take over. and she said wait, that is not what i am here for i was by myself before -- for a month before she came through. she was technically here as a secretary, but we insisted, just put on the uniform, and help her teach. i was struggling a little bit. and she has been here. one thing led to another and now we are co-owners. you think a lot more about safety after having children and i wanted to not live in fear so much, and so i just took advantage of the opportunity, and i found it very powerful to

hit something, to get some relief, but also having the knowledge one you might be in a situation of how to take care of yourself. >> the self-defence class is a new thing that we are doing. we started with a group of women last year as a trial run to see how it felt. there's a difference between self-defence and doing a karate class. we didn't want them to do an actual karate class. we wanted to learn the fundamentals of how to defend yourself versus, you know, going through all the forms and techniques that we teaching a karate class and how to break that down. then i was approached by my old high school. one -- once a semester, the kids get to pick an extra curricular activity to take outside of the school walls. my old biology teacher is now the principle. she approached us into doing a

self-defence class. the girls have been really proactive and really sweet. they step out of of the comfort zone, but they have been willing to step out and that hasn't been any pushback. it is really great. >> it is respect. you have to learn it. when we first came in, they knew us as those girls. they didn't know who we were. finally, we came enough for them to realize, okay, they are in the business now. it took a while for us to gain that respect from our peers, our male peers. >> since receiving the grant, it has ignited us even more, and put a fire underneath our butts even more. >> we were doing our summer camp and we are in a movie theatre, and we just finished watching a film and she stepped out to receive a phone call. she came in and she screamed, hey, we got the grant. and i said what? >> martial arts is a passion for us. it is passion driven. there are days where we are dead tired and the kids come and they

have the biggest smiles on their faces and it is contagious. >> we have been operating this program for a little over a year all women entrepreneurs. it is an extraordinary benefit for us. we have had the mayor's office investing in our program so we can continue doing this work. it has been so impactful across a diversity of communities throughout the city. >> we hope that we are making some type of impact in these kids' lives outside of just learning karate. having self-confidence, having discipline, learning to know when it's okay to stand up for yourself versus you just being a bully in school. these are the values we want the kids to take away from this. not just, i learned how to kick and i learned how to punch. we want the kids to have more values when they walk outside of these doors. [♪♪♪]

october 20, 2022. san francisco government oversight and audits committee.