>> oversight board is called to order at 416 p.m. sheriff department oversight board meeting is in session. on behalf of the board we like to thank the staff of sfgovtv. you may view the broadcast on cable channel 26. please stand for recite the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

>> thank you. please call the roll. >> sure. my apology for not able to be there in person. thank you to nicole armstrong from police accountability for manning the desk in the room for me. calling the roll. [roll call] is member afuhaamang going to be coming remotely? virtually? >> member afuhaamang is appearing remotely. >> can we hear her? >> i asked her to unmute. >> i'm present. >> thank you.

member broobter brookter will not be with us today. [roll call continued] >> you have a quorum. >> thank you very much. i want to announce item 3 the presentation by brian williams is postponed to future meeting, so we'll not go to the agenda item number 3. dan, would you call the first item, please? >> calling line item 1. resolution under california government code section 5493e action item. resolution setting forth findings required under assembly bill 361 that allow the sheriff department oversight board and any subcommittees to hold meetings remotely as specified. the public

is welcome to address the board for up to 2 minutes for line item 1. comments are opportunities to speak during public comment period are available for members of the public present by lining up at the podium or those not present via phone by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code 24974407820. press pound and pound again to join the meeting as a participant. wait to hear a beep when entered the meeting. when public comment is announced for the line item or general comment, press star 3 and this will advice the moderator you wish to speak and add you to the queue. when you hear the moderator say, good eebening caller you have 2 minutes, this is your opportunities to make public comment. you will have 2 minutes to provide comments. once your 2 minutes ended you will be moved out of the queue and back into listening of the

participant in the meeting unless you decide to disconnect. members of the public may stay on the meeting and listen for another line item called in order to make public comment by pressing star 3 to be added back to the queue. looks like we have no public comment. we will take a vote for line item 1. [roll call] resolution passes.

>> take the next item on the agenda please. >> line item 2, adoption of minutes. action item. review and approval the minutes from the sheriff department oversight board regular meeting held november 4, 2022. members of the public who would like to make public comment for line item 2, you are present please line up at the podium, otherwise please call 415-655-0001 and enter access code 24974407820. press 3 to raise your hand to be added to the queue. appears we have no public comment and will take the vote for line item 2. [roll call] >> i want to make a clarification. i wasn't here and i like it to reflect it was excused absence because i gave prior

notice. >> likewise. this is commissioner carrion. >> vice president carrion. [roll call continued] >> (inaudible) >> but we were not here. >> to approve minutes when you are not here--or to deny minutes when they are not here. >> i would say no. >> thank you. [roll call continued]

>> can interrupt. i apologize. are you voting with that correction that members (inaudible) did you not say you wanted to correct to say you are excused versus absent? >> right. >> i think it needs to be clear what you are voting on. are you voting on the minutes as- >> as amended. >> i'll make a formal motion. i like to amend the minutes to reflect that i and commissioner carrion gave prior notice we would be absent from the meeting and like the minutes to reflect that they are excused absences. >> i will second the motion. president wechter. >> call the vote again. >> now we can have

public comment. >> you have to offer public comment again. >> members of the public who like to make public comment for line item 2, if you are present line at the podium otherwise call 415-655-0001 and enter access code 24974407820. press 3 to raise your hand to be added to the queue. it appears we have no public comment. we can now take the vote for line item 2. with the amendments. [roll call]

the minutes from the november 2, 2022 meeting are adopted with the amendments. >> thank you. can you now go to the next item on the agenda, please? >> calling line item 4. presentation by department of human resources dhr. discussion and possible action. further discussion on the recruitment of inspector general and possible action item to select a recruitment firm. questions regarding the office of the inspector general (oig), including the change from 8177 attorney position to an 8181 assistant chief attorney position. there shawn (inaudible) is joining us remotely. >> thank you dan. would the board like me to introduce myself? maybeileler i'll start there. (inaudible) assistant director of employment service with department of human

resources. my colleague kate howard joined last meeting on november 4 i believe and shared the one proposal that the board received for the executive search firm. that was from bob murray and associates. there was a couple members that were out last meeting and so dan worked with kate and i to make sure we would have representation here if there were questions and then also happy to answer questions. i understand from dan there were questions around the positions at the sheriff department oversight board in particular the 8181 position. so, happy to answer any questions or outline anything for the commissioners that were not present at the last meeting. >> do any of the members have questions? >> i do. i

think-number 1, we haven't agreed as a board whether or not we were going to use a search firm so concerned about the budget as it pertains to the search firm and also given there is one search firm and president wechter you unilaterally reached out to that particular search firm, so i'm now more concerned that it looks like the process is not a fair process and it is just an appearance so not saying there is direct conflict but there was (inaudible) i'm not sure i want to go down the route of a national search firm one. number two, given there is only one search firm you reached out to earlier before it was a formal process, i am concerned about that. >> could you describe the process by which dhr solicited proposals from search firms?

>> certainly. we actually couple years ago went out and are did a full rfp for executive search firms. we have a number of them that are now approved city vendors, so when a department such as yours has a need for an executive search, we can reach out to that group of approved vendors. in this case we received one proposal and that was from bob murray. (inaudible) concern about why we only received one, i'm doing four other-working with four other boards and commissioners now for executive works, public works, environment, potentially department of elections which sure you all have seen recently and the department of ethics commission. several of those departments also only received one proposal. a lot has

to do tremendous amount of comp titian in the space now. there is a lot of entities not just san francisco with the 5 i just spoke to including this board, but also a number throughout the bay area and state. i am grateful when we get one proposal and i had a similar conversation with a commission president earlier this week and they also shared-i would have thought we would have received more proposal and shared the same sentiment i'm sharing with this board, there is tremendous amount of competition. the good news is bob murray is a firm i worked with before. they are quite reputable and i do stand by the work they performed. to answer the otherer part of the question, which

is, why the board may opt to engage a executive search firm, a lot has to do with there is not staff infrastructure right now to really support all the efforts that need to happen to do a nation wide search. we would need regular engagement not just with this board, but with any stakeholder groups, constituent groups you feel is necessary and that is a really important piece and a extremely important piece for a new board standing up there that there be intention and engagement you get from a executive search firm. those are a couple things i hope address some of the concerns and happy to answer or address any other concerns. >> any other members have questions? >> yes. my understanding of this

particular kind of profession specifically oversight boards, inspector general, that there is a pretty tight nit group because it is the profession is a boutique profession let's say, and that individuals kind of know who all the individuals are that would potentially have access to the requirements and the training necessary to be an inspector general. would-simply posting this sufficiently give notice to those individuals? for example, we are lucky enough to have the president of the national organization of oversight- >> i'm not the president. you elevated me. >> thank you-but you are a board member, right? >> yes. >> so this information could be distributed widely to the people

that would have the expertise we need. i bring this up because i am concerned with spending $60 thousand in a national firm if we just would already be able to access the exact same pool giving the connections within that specific industry. you know, that might be something that i would like clarification. if any commissioner knows or also you yourself mr. shepherd. >> should i jump in? i can't see the room. if there is any other comments from fellow board members. >> if you want to respond mr. shepherd then i can respond. >> i can take the bigger piece of it. so, what we

(inaudible) that we would post the job and pray people apply for it and i feel at a level with department head and executive search is necessary to make sure that we are as a city you as a board are reaching out and engaging as many of the folks in this realm that would qualify. i don't have a rolidex of those names. you all may and that may be a response you get from fellow members here on that front. i can tell you that when the department of police accountability was put up, this was not a discussion when it went from office of citizen complaints to becoming their own department. they have somebody in mind already and they

appointed that person, so this is a new task for all of us. i'm not aware of the commission having necessarily somebody in mind, so you are always going to hear from your hr teams and eventually the department will have a hr team as well. you will hear we will encourage robust engagement and outreach, not just to solicit candidates but talking individually to each of you as board members to yoif the ideal candidate, profile, how and where to recruit, potentially other stakeholders, any constituents groups, the public. normally we have engagement with employees within the department, but we are not there right now. those are the other considerations that i would put forth for there board to

consider. >> so, i think- >> can we just-to be organized could all the members ask to be recognized to speak? >> yes, i like to be recognized. >> yes. >> i had raised this at a prior meeting and did attend the national association of oversight of law enforcement, and one member from the madison inspector general office mentioned to me that they went with a recruitment national recruitment firm ended with fewer then a dozen candidates and when the city madison hr went through they were left with just 5 candidates so i don't know that expending that kind of money to get 5 candidates if we could get 5 candidates would be justified. i think i would be more comfortable if i had a better handle if we were to get things in a larger universe and across the bay we have

a inspector general, michelle phillips the inspector general for the police commission and she-that was a new position so think she has a lot of insight. the difference is she brings forths a law enforcement background which in the charter limits the number of candidates because our candidates cant have law enforcement and think that is a unfortunate limitation. >> any other questions from members? to address your point, heads of oversight agencies come from a wide variety of backgrounds so there is no one organization that you can contact. some have come from the u.s. department of justice. i think one has come from academia. so, there really isn't just one place where this can be advertised. new people are coming into the field all the

time. dr. roseenthol in his presentation last month mentioned the head of the newly established washington state oversight will vej all officer involved shootings and in custody deaths. dr. roseenthol contacted himself so there are a lot of varied areas for which potential applicants can be drawn. i do know that the oakland is recruiting for a new executive director for their community police review agency which is more similar to what our inspector general will be doing and they have over 20 applicants, so i think we would be able to get a fair number of applicants. any other questions? >> follow up question. >> are yes. >> if we already

have-i guess it seems to me like your statements seem to support the idea that we are connected to the people that would have access to these applicants such as dr. rosenthol and network of people and are it doesn't seem based on the representation that there is already 20 applicants for this other job that it is not a situation where we will likely find a dirth of applicants if we as mr. shepherd indicated post and pray. if that were the case though, if the scope was to insure that they would be posting to the judge's association to the u.s. general, to the california generals, to the basic indeed and all the different general work employment kinds of postings to the

national organization, those are just 6, right? do you think that a national search would yield more results then those? >> i do, yes. >> why? >> because a professional search firm is more familiar with the places to publicize this because they would have done similar recruitments for other-similar positions. so, they are familiar with the sources for the areas to advertise, whereas dhr is starting from scratch without that knowledge, and-- >> i guess my perspective-it is starting from scratch if we know as we as a board member already know and your amazing expertise-? >> i would not pretend to know all the places where we could

advertise the position for inspector general because i have-my understanding in the field but it is not as expansive and sure the professional search firm may be aware of other areas where a position like this would be advertised. i'm familiar with positions on the naco website but the outside search firm is not here tonight to provide us with information where they would advertise it. but, at this point we are trying to deal with questions to mr. shepherd so other questions? >> i do have a question. what is the cost for dhr to do a search versus what we know the national searches $60 thousand, but what is the cost associated with putting a posting out for this position on dhr level? >> i had my hand raised because i was

going to add that piece. it is really two components to that. i would need to go back to my team for a rough estimate. it would probably be maybe half to 2/3 the cost for staff time. the difference and the president spoke to this a second ago, we really building things from scratch in a lot of respects. the job announcement, the coordinating the meetings, all of the things that would be necessary to get this going and then conducting all of the work that would be necessary around interviews, bringing people in and supporting those efforts and engagement with candidates. there is a cost that dhr would work with the department. normally we would get

help from the hr team at a department. that is not yet stood up for this department, so i can speak to a recruitment that i helped with prior to the pandemic with the planning commission. that was probably about 40 to $50 thousand. some was because of the time and effort that was needed not only to engage the commission, but also two commissions, the planning commission and the historic preservation commission and there was a hand-off to the mayor's office. the cost that is not necessarily associated with that is it took us a lot longer because we don't have the built in resources of a executive search firm to coordinate all of these efforts and we rely tremendously on the planning commission and historic preservation commission. they have to do a tremendous

amount of work as a committee. they appointed a committee so that group was doing things like recruitment and contacting people and helping set up interviews and helping do a lot of the work in partnership with dhr. so, those are important considerations. yes, there is a cost that would be work ordered with dhr and the trade-off being they are very likely wouldn't be the same level and scope you get from a executive sunch firm. you highlighted one issue which is we don't have a rolidex of names and resources to find the names. >> thank you. >> so, on the second part of the agenda item, the original budget for the office of inspector general included an 8177 attorney civil/criminal. my

understanding that has been changed to a 8181 assistant chief attorney position which has a salary of about $260 thousand and the attorney civil criminal is significantly lower. can you give us information how that change came about? >> i have a little background from talking to the hr person who supports the department of police accountability. because there is no staff you need to appoint the director and appoint staff. there were things tied into the budget, tied into standing up the department including standing up the commission, making sure there was positions and appointments, so because there were no authority, because there is no oig, no inspector general to do this work, dhr, the mayor's office, department of police

accountability looked at this and decided we need somebody at the department. we were asking the department of police accountability to take ownership for a number of things that they necessarily couldn't do. the position is (inaudible) because the person selected within that position at the district attorney's office so they wanted to keep them whole. it is at will as needed appointment, so when the department does select a director, that inspector general will have the ability to make the staffing decisions they need to make and like i said as well, that position is actually at the department of police accountability. the position was purely to keep the individual that came from the district attorney office whole. >> my understanding is that individual is

marshal kind? y i believe that is correct, yes. >> am i correct this position is paid for from the office of inspector general budget? >> i pleev believe that is true. i believe it is work-ordered and not paid for by the police accountability department. >> okay. was the change other then upgrading it so that mr. kind could move from the same classification he had at the district attorney's office, was there any stated need for this position itself to be an assistants chief attorney position? >> i believe that was the only reason i'm aware of. >> okay. any board members have questions about this element of the agenda item? >> yes. so, this position you indicated is being paid by the budget, correct?

>> uh-huh. out of department of police accountability and then the sheriff department oversight board oig is paying for the work order. >> okay. and all the work that is being performed underneath this position is only for the work of the ig, correct or the office of the ig? >> that is my understanding. definitive answer needs to come from a individual or the department of police accountability. >> in other words, what i would like to confirm is that the funds that are being taken from this budget, allocated budget are used solely for the work of this particular body and agency? and you're indicating we should ask somebody else at this time? >> i think--i wouldn't

be in a position to answer that question. i think because the individual is an employee of the department of police accountability i think we would need to ask them. i'm happy to work with your secretary with dan to determine whether the department of police accountability can provide a written statement, probably dan-i suggest we ask somebody from that department attend a upcoming meeting. my understanding is yes, that work is solely to the benefit of the sheriff department oversight board. >> we do have somebody from dpa here. thank you so much. greatly appreciate all the work you and hr. it seems you have a lot on your plate now in taking and really looking at these

issues and also coming twice to this board so that we make sure there is full transparency and all board members have opportunities to ask questions as well as the public so thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. my pleasure. >> we have any other questions from any board members on this agenda item? okay. i think now we can take public comment. >> members of the public who would like to comment line up at the podium otherwise call 415-655-0001 and enter access code 24974407820, press 3 to raise your hand to be added to the queue.

it appears we have no public comment. shall i call line item 5? >> no. this listed also as a possible action item. >> motion for an action item. >> yes, i would make a motion that we contract with the outside recruitment firm to conduct the recruitment for the inspector general of the office of inspector general. >> is there a second?

>> president wechter can you please repeat the action item again or what you are proposing? >> yes, i'm proposing we ask dhr to contract with the outside recruitment firm to conduct the recruitment for the inspector general position of the office of inspector general and i received a text from someone saying their hand is raised and they want to make public comment. >> okay. >> good evening call er, you have two minutes. caller, you

are still muted. if you can unmute yourself. >> hello? can you hear me? >> you have two minutes. yes. >> thank you. good evening members of the sheriff department oversight board. my name is barbara atard. i have been involved in civilian oversight of law enforcement for all most 40 years. i worked for the sheriff department and county parole many years ago. i was one of the original staff of office of citizen department now department of police accountability and worked there 15 years. also worked as the executive to berkeley police commission and inspector general for the city of san jose.

these two items before you through the department of human resources are really important items. i urge you to go with the recruiter to hire the inspector general. in my experience recruiters will bring in candidates beyond what advertising will bring in. as a former resident i know the importance of advertising through that organization, but advertising should not be the extent of the search. president wechter mentioned, there are several professions that can (inaudible) such as inspector general. hiring for this position is one of the most important decisions you will be making. you want to have experts bring in top candidates for your review. also important for public image of the oversight board that you are doing the maximum to hire a top notch

inspector general. >> thank you, 30 seconds. >> i also have concerns that a attorney was hired for the oversight board who is paying at a higher level who is paid at a higher level then budgeted for the ig, and i think you should look carefully at that. thank you very much. >> thank you caller. we have one more caller on the line. good evening caller, you have two minutes. >> hi. my name is john alden. i was calling to comment. can you hear me? i was calling to echo comments barbara atard just made. i would add another factor i think important here. i have had opportunities to be an apicate for positions like the one you are describing and also to

be on the hiring end for the position you are looking to fill here and in both of those two experiences or sets of experiences i had opportunity to deal with both recruiters and try to (inaudible) for commissions like yours having a recruiter is far superior and much easier for you to process through those applicants. recruiters are really good finding applicants that may not have heard about the opening and persuading them to apply which is essential. i have met a number of people in the field who say they wont apply if there are not recruiters involved because it signals the agency isn't serious about the search and not serious about oversight and don't think you want to signal that to candidates out there. i will say it is a lot of work to include the public in these kinds of recruitments and you will want help on board for that given

you don't have staff in dhr has pretty clearly indicated they (inaudible) the additional cost that i'm hearing may be 20 to $30 thousand from my perspective is totally worth it to have quality candidates and think you will get them faster then dhr so strongly recommend you go with recruiter. it is my experience when you don't have a recruiter you might get applicants but often times they are poorly qualified or not qualified. in the example we were talking about earlier, no one knows who the 20 applicants are and whether they are particularly good. in my experience- >> thank you caller. your time is up. >> may we ask questions of the commenters? the public commenters? >> ms. clark. >> you can. i guess so, yeah.

>> mr. alden do you plan on applying for this position? no, okay. i just want to make sure that we know for the record that whether it is a non response or there is a tech issue. >> are you still on the line? it does not appear mr. alden is still on the line. >> hello? >> hello. mr. alden? >> i had a question, yes. >> yes, mr. alden. >> i was curious why we are as a taxpayer

in san francisco looking to respond thousands of dollars in tax money to have a private search instead of posting this through dhr? how many meetings will happen before the hiring an ig? >> i'm sorry, is this mr. alden because i think that isn't answering the question? >> this is a new caller, yes. >> can you identify yourself, please? >> my name is (inaudible) san francisco taxpayer and residents and was watch ing the meeting online. >> thank you. go ahead. >> i was wondering how many meetings we are going to have and why we are spending money to post on a private search. how many meetings have to take place about hiring for a ig? how soon is this supposed to happen? are we getting one by 2028? this is like trying to sell a monorail.

curious why this isn't done through dhr. >> thank you. >> thank you caller. it does not appear mr. alden is still on the line. >> you say it does not appear? >> it does not appear he is still on the line. >> can tell from my own knowledge mr. alden has taken a position as the head of the sonoma county independent office of law enforcement and outreach, so i strongly doubt he would apply for this position. >> but you have no knowledge of any interest from mr. alden? >> that is correct. >> okay. >> is there any other

public comment? so, i agree with mr. alden's comments. i can say from my many years of experience in the oversight field that the recognized best practice is to do a nation wide search. it appears that dhr is not prepared to do that type of search in a timely manner. this is a new position for a new department so they not have dealt with before and i think we can achieve our goal of hiring a competent and fair inspector general by going with a outside search firm that knows the territory, that knows how to contact candidates, solicit candidates and get the best possible candidates and at the previous meeting they said they expect they can complete the entire process in 16

weeks and dhr said it will take longer and sounds dhr is quite overwhelmed filling many other vacant city positions so this is the path city berkeley went down when they filled head of their new department of accountability. it is the process sonoma county went through. bay area rapid transit used a outside search firm when they brought in their independent police auditor, so i think we should follow the leads of those entities and move forward and contract with the sole bidder on this process. >> president wechter the appears there is still one more comment. >> okay. >> good evening caller. you have two minutes.

>> hi. this is john alden. i left the meeting and heard you wanted me back, is that right? >> this is commissioner carrion. i had a question whether you intend to apply to the ig position in san francisco? >> i wouldn't, but i also say for a lot of people like myself who consider applying whether you have recruiter is a significant factor figuring out whether the recruitment process is a job (inaudible) if you like i can tell why that it is or what it is like to be a applicant but from applicant perspective it is far more persuasive and compelling to have a recruiter talking to you about what the intention entails and what it is like and practical details opposed to applying to a solicitation online cold when someone

doesn't have a sense what is going on and does tend to signal the agency isn't serious about recruitment,er which i don't think is what you want to signal. happy to answer (inaudible) >> to make sure i understood that at this time you do not intened to apply? >> no, i'm not intending to apply. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment to add? >> no. >> okay. i believe i made a motion. do we-would you take up where you left off? you were asking if there is a second? >> is there a second on president wechter's motion? >> second that motion. afuhaamang speaking. >> thank you.

>> is there any other member want to discuss the matter before a vote? would you call- >> sorry, i just wanted to add for context. the reasons stated. the difference between the outside agency and the dhr doing it, it is not that much far different in terms of cost and then the outside agency would be able to do it. i think in the last presentation bob murray and associates was the vendor they were looking at and their experience working with bart, city fresno, sonoma county, sacramento, and even orange county with similar positions makes me confident that they know what they are doing and in terms of hiring a recruitment agency, it has a cost to it, but

i think just making sure we are accessing the best candidates and also just helps us save time and money in terms of checking the backgrounds and making sure that they are vetting them and interviewing them, it just makes it much easier for us and i don't think the cost-i think the benefit of hiring the right person will far outweigh the cost of doing it right the first time. that is my spiel. >> dan, can you call the vote, please? >> yes. we'll take the vote for line item 4. recruitment-i mean the hearing of the recruitment firm. member afuhaamang. >> aye.

>> member afuhaamang is aye. vice president carrion. >> abstain. >> vice carrion abstain. >> you have to vote, sorry. you can't abstain. unless you have a conflict of interest. >> no, i currently do not have a conflict of interest. i actually would like to a little more information about other oversight commissions that have just posted because we are hearing from my perspective we are hearing from people who used this-a national executive search firm but haven't heard from people who have not used it. it seems to me has there-given the funds and the lack of budget and the very small budget we have to do an immense

amount of work i'm very critical of using that budget in a way that will result in the same people being selected that potentially may be selective. given what i learned from the industry and given the fact the bord made it very clear that we will be asking for community input and asking the community the voters the people who have put this to our charge of what they want in a ig. >> circumstances under which you cannot vote. one is you have a conflict and two is if the body excuse you from voting. besides that you have to vote yes or no. >> i do not have a conflict at this time for the reason stated,

no. >> thank you. vice president carrion is no. mr. nguyen. >> no. >> nguyen is no. mr. soo. >> no. >> member soo is no. president wechter. >> yes. president wecktser wechter is yes. the motion does not pass. >> am i correct we need 4 votes to pass? >> yes. >> okay. >> shall we move to line item 5? >> could we take a 5 minute break before we move to that because i know that may be a more lengthy presentation? anyone have objection? >> no, so long i believe as long as thet mayor matter is closed and will not be reopened after the break. this item is

closed? >> unless mr. palmer were to arrive. >> i see. if that's the purpose of the break- >> no, the purpose is a bio break. >> okay. i have no issue with that. >> okay. thank you. we will take a 5 minute break. it is 509 p.m. [recess]

[meeting reconvened]

[unable to hear speaker]

>> department of police accountability performing the department for the fiscal year 2022-2023. 8181 assistant chief attorney from september 15, 2022 through september 14, 2023 with a budget of 362 some odd dollars including $359 thousand salary and benefits. so, that is one reason why i asked dph to make a presentation tonight. and asked director henderson to make the presentation, sorry he is not here because i think he would be in a

position to answer some of the questions that are most significant. if you can go ahead, we appreciate it. >> my name is nicole armstrong-i am helping out as a clerk tonight but i'm the chief operating officer/cfo/tech person at the dpa office and so i'm here to explain what dpa role is and the background behind the process and what you find is chicken before the egg which came first and the steps we had to do. let me start by saying thank you for having me. i appreciate it. i appreciate you got to see a lot of work i put into doing this program and the different processes we suggested. i'm excited to talk to you today and answer any questions you have. i'll keep it short because there is a lot of questions and want to give you the

nitty-gritty, the details to give a overhead and you can ask the fine details as we go. i want to talk about the operational staffing minimum budget requirements. this document was created during the budget process during the last budget cycle and really and all honesty i looked at the budget process what was being suggested for the sheriff department of accountability and i looked at and was like you are missing all of operations. you do not have accountant or budget staff, tech person, you don't have money for case management, you don't have money for additional funding, things you need to stand up the office. after seeing that i made suggestions. we wrote the document and said there is a way we can do this to save the city money and this is just a suggestion that came out where we said dpa is already doing the work and that is the most important critical elements is

dpa wants to make sure the investigations are completed. we do not want to break the 3304 errors and also want to make sure the process continues and there is no delay. we want this investigation to keep going. so, we came with this phase plan that basically suggested you need operations staff. here it is and this is the things missing. that is the executive phase. discoverry. the idea you could use what dpa already built our operation staff to find the best inspector general. to find all these things while using our resources to be able to develop your own to hire all your staff. hire everything. that way you can do things. we made that suggestion. i think it was february last year sent it out and said you need to put these things in the budget even if you don't include us in it. you need to include operations and that was the key to all this. operations. i know because i run our operations in my office and without my accounting and budget

and tech staff, you can't run department because who does the expenses and work orders and all the stuff nobody wants to do? so, come along here comes the board and commission. time goes past and we needed to get you all appointed. we got notification that the appointment needed to be done, the board needed training and we needed steps moving forward so you can sit in your seats today so we were told a clerk needs to be brought in. microphone lower? we needed a clerk to be brought in. dan was brought in to be able to access budget we need to pay the stipend for the commissioners and make sure you get your training by the sheriff department which cost $40 thousand. we needed to make sure all these things were met before you were officially appointed so you are in the seats you are in today. dan was hired, got the e-mail and stipends and

mandatory-some are still waiting for e-mail appointments and still working on it and we started doing that. then what do we have do? now you have employee in the department. what does that employee need? a computer. they need access to e-mail. access to stipends and access to expenses and access to all these things but you have somebody not necessarily trained in the role to assist you. you will not have the person to do those things that no one ever wants to do like looking at expense reports so we came with a work order-the work order is the same thing the controller office do, dpw does, dt. work orders allow other agencies to do work for you. they get paid for the work. one of the work orders done for the sca is make sure you have a accountant through the controller office so if you have to purchase things or when you hire for your

dhr for the search things can be paid and that could be worked through the system. all these things need to be worked in the background. we made sure all that stuff was done and been working through that so when you look at the work orders you will see my teams are on there to help you. that is the same with investigators. the eghaveers have been doing this work a long time and we wanted to get compensation back for doing the work we have done. we were not able to so the mayor budget office said this is how you do this. approval is made. we are doing the work and making sure the work is dedicated and hourly-marked and the time is recorded for all the efforts we make. so, you have the clerk. here comes the next problem. you have a clerk at a certain level and we can grant him access to general areas in the systems for approvals. however, because the clerk only has access and is not a manager level position they can't approve things on a

higher level, so they cant go and do budget access budget systems or access different areas in the system and are they need somebody to approve different work so we worked on a 8181 because we need a manager position. somebody needed to be hired as a manager in the department to do the higher level work and originally it was 8177 but that is not a manager level position so it needed to be upgraded to new level. it was approved by the mayor budget office. dhr. that position is dedicated to helping out (inaudible) that is all they do. marshal kind will speak after me but i want to give you the overview. dpa really wants this department and commission to succeed but at the same time, my team is 3 people and that's a lot of work for 3 people to do dpa and sda so we want to give that

stuff to sda because we dont want to do it for a long period of time. it is a lot of work. writing mou and doing those things along those lines from my department take a lot of review. same with tech stuff or budget drafted, those things need to be done with higher level of approval. dhr approved that position but the problem is they say we cant hire without a oig. so they were brought under dpa only for that reason so we have a work order to pay for the position to make approvals where we can't do it. as i said before- >> dan, i can hear your clicking so assume that on webex people will hear that in the background. thank you. jason,

sorry. >> so, because of the chicken and egg we are in this position where we had hired a clerk to be able to help you get out but now we need manager level. this was this circle process we have gotten into now. the only goal is make sure things get approved, things go forward and moved. nothing was set up in a way the oig won't be able to hire or remove anybody from a position. the only goal is make sure the work gets done and make sure dan is supported and that these things can move forward for you as well. that's pretty much the bottom line what we are trying to do with these. check my notes. so, trust me i rather have the position for the 8181 under sda because having with dpa creates issues but that (inaudible) now you have a dedicated member to work on the issues and hopefully

looking at the budget in the future because you have to remember the budget is coming out-the budget process starts soon. right? one of the funny things about the budget and sure many work in budget in cities before, if you don't use funds the city tends to take the funds away. some of the good things having work orders with different cities agency it shows the funds are being used and showing processes and are some of the larger projects where you use the funding this year means you can carry over the funds for next year if you start the projects now. the budget is the key for a lot of these things. you need to make sure you set the funds and make sure you have a person in the position to do it. one of the positions sda needs to hire next is 1823 and i will be advocating this. the reason is they need a budget person to start controlling and having access. dpa does not have access to sda budget or anything along those lines so

one thing we are trying to work with is get a 1823 hired to do the budget for you because you need to start itemizing. when you look the way the budget is designed and laid out the material and supplies are low. you don't have a vehicle and all these things you need to be able to operate your department, especially once you hire the ig. you don't want to start the ig without funds so we want to make sure that is in place now. the 1823 is the next thing sda does to move forward with the budget this february. that is coming up around the corner. once that is close d out that is the funding for the next year. same with spending. the work orders dt has or accounting they establish a baseline that allow you to identify how much money you need in the future and need to increase including the training cost you like to have to travel to places. all that

needs to be figured out and added now so the proposal could be made in february. 1823. sorry. i know. i am told i talk a lot and apparently not in the mic so i apologize. alright, so i will let-if you want to ask me questions i'll let marshal kind talk unless you want to ask me questions about this process. i can answer anything related to this. i don't want you to forget. >> i do have questions and other board members may as well. why didn't director henderson make the ezprentation presentation? >> most of the information you are requesting i was part of the mou written. i did that. doing any of the additional things that was my processing. the other stuff really is my primarily field and my team is doing it so i'm here to talk how this happened and why the process is. >> the mou is received this week from mayor

office of the budget. one was signed september 19 and the other july 26. why wasn't the board notified of the existence of the mou signs by the secretary dan leung? >> i don't know. i don't think we really have the processes in place to know we needed to send it to you. that is probably just it. >> why wasn't this board asked for approval of the mou rather then having our temporary secretary sign them? >> all this stuff was through the sda funds and the instruction what the mayor budget office told us to do. if it was supposed to go through you it is error and will follow up to find the correct procedure to go for mou or work order. it is work order, it isn't a mou. i will follow up on that and get you a answer. >> one is a mou and one work order. >> mou is memorandum

of understanding. work order is coming to agreement with two agencies to doing work functions. it is only providing the funding for those items specifically. >> okay. what i have is a-labeled a mou for fiscal year 2022-23. work order amount $620 thousand. essentially to reimburse dpa for the work you are already doing? correct? >> the work we are doing now. all the mou are designed to do on a quarterly basis so we are doing the work we are doing now to recover the funds. we did want to recover the funds earlier. we were told we can't because there had to be a department in place to recover funds. >> right. do you have those documents with you? >> what documents? >> the work order and the mou? >> yes. >> i do have a question about it. so, on the work order, it lists hourly rates and for example, for senior investigator brent (inaudible) hourly rate of $109.69

and i believe on a bill it lists his hourly rate at $92.69 and want to know how those were arrived at because according to transparent california in 2021 he earned $80.81 an hour. >> when we do these we try to include the fringe benefits and payment frz the next year. transparent california will only show what was previous ly paid. you know fringe benefits and years go you have different amounts added. we use what we are paying and added. >> those reflect the individual paid for salary and benefits? >> yes. >> nothing else? >> yes. >> okay. so, what-maybe mr. kind can answer this. what work is being done on behalf of the sda?

>> i will let mr. kind talk about that after when we-he will talk about the whole thing. three more slides. i just wanted to let you ask me questions so that i can pass it over to him. and, >> you understand this needed a manager level position. why is manager level needed? >> i'll give a low level example. dan wants to take vacation or get something apruchbed you need twob people in the office to approve something. you have one person receiving a document and one-dan sends it in, has nobody that approves expense for him. say he wants to go to naco he has to submit to somebody. now marshal kind is there we can send to him to approve it. otherwise he doesn't get approval for things and has to go to somewhere else. the other person identified now is me and it needs to go to

somebody in sda and not somebody in dpa. the whole thing being sda and dpa and him under there, i understand that but you needed somebody in that position to approve higher level anything. dan is a clerk. he's not an accountant or expense person. he is has amazing skills but he does not have the qualification to make management decisions for things like the budget or any processing along those lines. you need somebody higher level. >> why does it need to be someone who is 81 chief attorney since we were told by dhr that is solely so mr. kind can keep his same classification and rate of pay? >> from my understanding it was because of management level. >> could someone at a lower salary-say a manager 1 or

supervisor level? >> we have a 8177, it is easier to convert a position to higher classification rather then creating a new position. >> you do have manager level 1 positions within dp a rks i believe? >> no, it has to be through sda. dpa8181 was brought in for this thing right now. we don't have the 8181 for dpa. it was only brought in once we realized we couldn't have it as sda so they were brought to dpa. the position had to exist in the sda position. when you look that positions sda has, you have a 1823, you have 8124, 8126, it has to be in one of the classifications and substitute it up so they took the 8171 and substituted up to 8181. >> why not leave as 8177? >> it st. not a

management position. you needed somebody with the higher level experience which marshal kind will be explaining as soon as i can pass it to him. >> i think i have a comment. i think we something with a overview and with all due respect president wechter, i feel like you're interrogating the department of police accountability when they have a mou with the sheriff department. they handle sheriff complaints as well right now and until we have the infrastructure of a office we can't do a hand-off. i think director henderson made very clear that it was always his intention to do a very warm hand-off and we don't have a it system. i think our priorities right now is to make sure the sheriff department has a it system to pull records because it doesn't matter if we have inspector general if we can't pull data to generate reports

and then i thought we agreed we were going to have a timeline of talking about hiring inspector general and also soliciting community input and discussed two meetings. i'm concerned you did public records request rather then bring something to the board. we are here to be transparent because we are here to serve the public and i would think that you would want the entire board to know the questions you are asking rather then doing public records request and director henderson was here to answer questions in the past. it a(inaudible) i feel there is a lot of extra interrogation going on that cast a possible shadow all the great things they have been doing. i think from the get go the charter amendment did not anticipate the funding and was not carefully crafted and

perhaps supervisor walton might want to go back and look but i see the problems with excluding inspector general and staff from having law enforcement background and also the budget was not anticipated and i actually spoke to one of the clerks. that is why it took so long for us to have our first meeting or training is because one of the clerks was the board of supervisor told supervisor walton he could not be or commission secretary because he had full obligation with committee of board of supervisors. i want to keep this at higher level and make sure-i am just thankful that dpa has been there and nicole you have the oversight and having been a past commissioner 12 years i know the budget and everything, it takes staff to be on top of it and remind when there is going to be hearings and right now with february around the corner we have to really be cognisant of the budget items we put in to make sure we

have enough. the mayor was involved. we might not have had the money because it want anticipated with the charter amendment and glad the mayor's office saw the need to supplement the budget and have these work orders allowed. but, in no way can we as a board interfere with existing contract s between the sheriff department and dp a. i wanted to state that for the record. i appreciate what you are doing. thank you. >> no problem. >> i think my question is predicated in large part had this been a more transparent process this would not have been necessary. if director henderson our first meeting told us he was preparing the mou and had dan sign one and come to us and brought these to us. if i didn't have to get them from the mayor budget

office. it felt dpa was not transparent about the existence of the mou's and money taken from the sda budget and the specific purpose outlined in the mou so why i'm asking a lot of questions because i discovered this and was rather surprised that it had not been provided to the board previously. >> i can tell you it is just oversight. i did know it needed to go to you. if that is the procedure and process, i will make sure i follow up and follow procedures i was given by the mayor budget office were fallowed to a t. the instructions were done. more then happy to help. as board member--dpa's only goal here is to make sure the work gets done. i want to stress this. i love my job at dpa. i was a investigator and senior investigator and ops manager. i love what we do and love what we do and how we can help with

the sheriff cases. our only goal is to make sure this work gets done. that is it. we do not want to keep the work-once this whole agency is set up, we want to hand it off. it is a lot of work for us. it is. we really do just want to do these right things the way we can. we want you to succeed and that is the basic minimum of my entire presentation is we have done all this work and more you don't know before the mou that happened just to make sure you can be in your seats because we want you to succeed 110 percent. you are all amazing people for volunteering to be on the first board willing to do this and forge the way. we want to help you. that's the bottom line. >> president wechter i request to be recognized to speak. >> yes. >> i think one thing what i heard president

wechter is you have this idea dpa is required to present things to us for approval and obviously as commissioner soo indicated we are not in a position to compel or interfere with any contract between two private parties even if those parties are dpa and the sheriff department. more importantly, i think we need to focus on what we are required and tasked to do by the voters. by san franciscans. that is in section 4.137 of the charter subdivision b lays out our powers and duties and none of these they are 6 specific duties and responsibilities, none of them require an independent body or agency to grant approval of acts they are doing pursuant to approved and legal contract. i think that we as a board

must follow what the voters wanted and not over-extend our jurisdiction in territory that first of all would be illegal because it is impaurp interference with contract and we have no authority based on contract law, but also, that we focus on the 6 tasks at hand. which are to appoint and remove inspector general and summarizing. again, that is section 4.137 subdivision b. to evaluate the work of the oig. to compile evaluate and recommend law enforcement custodial and patrol best practice. to conduct community outreach and receive community input. prepare and submit quarterly reports which i think is something we need to speak about as well as annual report and to monitor. in

performance of our duties, we have subsection e of the oi g powers and duties and says what the oig needs to do and they need to monitor sda operations. i think what is happening here, there seems to be some kind of assumption we operate as other oversight boards that may have more power. our job is get this thing running, get it done as ethically, transparent to make sure all disclosures of any potential bias or any issues should be out there and in front for the public to speak. we should be just as transparent as we require everyone else to be transparent and we move forward with doing this work. i also have a request and don't know this is a possible action item even though i disagreed with it being a possible action item, and i

expressed that multiple times as the vice president. i understand that president wechter you indicated we would work collaboratively. regretbly that didn't happen. there wasn't response of 4 request and finally request 4 minutes after the time i indicated i had a meeting. we were able to speak about that but it does concern me that there are independent acts with these public records requests. i would ask that if these are related to the board, that the board make that decision of the information unless those are independent you have a independent right to do public records, but to use your power as president and are present a potentially as a board is-and bring it to the board where i wish i would have had all those records you have review ed in advance to be able to understand the questions and to have the transparency of what is going on, but you have created a

silo and i'm not sure why that is. it doesn't make sense to me. but what i want to keep focusing on is what the powers and duties is. nothing in this-i'm not sure what you gender identify as. >> she. >> thank you. nothing in our powers and duties authorizes or requires the dpa come to us. in fact it would behoove our board to not micro manage. that is not what we are here for. we are not here to micro manage. we have certain skill sets, everyone brings something important to the table but the last thing we need to do is go outside what the voters said we should be doing and we need to prioritize what that is in in line with what is in the charter and i will ask that happening in our agenda genda item that we have an agenda item

10 which is future agenda items and set hard deadlines for when this has to get done. >> i like to address several things. first of all, i am not raising any issue what so ever about the dpa contract with the sheriff department. i am raising a issue about the dpa mou with sheriff department of accountability and right now this board is the sheriff department of accountability. dan leung signed on behalf of this board. dan leung is our employee. i wish we had been informed of that. i think that any future mou or contracts should be brought to this board for approval rather then dan signing them and think that is probably consistent with how every board and commission in the city would operate. the secretarys are not authorized to enter into contracts or agreement on their

behalf. regarding the records, i made my public records request because i didn't realize what i could make request as informed me as a individual member of this board and are she can correct if i'm wrong. she said any member of the board can make a request to a department for records and per the charter they are required to respond. my most recent request at dpa has been made through that. i did public records request because i wasn't aware i had that authority and didn't want to be getting any records that any other member of the public could have. as for the records you have been provided with them. dan provided them in the packet for last month's meeting and this month's meeting so none of the records i received have been kept from any of you. they have been shared, so we can have this discussion. as i said, i had a concern because it took me

weeks to finally get these mou's and i have been made aware of them. had the board been made aware quite some time ago this wouldn't have been a issue. i think the board has a right to know what agreements are being entered into in its name because on the murks ou it says dan leung legal assistant san francisco shaffer sheriff department accountability. ypt to make sure we have all the information we should have (inaudible) where funds are going and how they are used and think we have a obligation to the taxpayers to insure they are used wisely and why i ask questions about why this position requires someone earning $360 thousand a year and whether those tasks could be done by someone at a lower

salary level. >> i do have a follow-up. what is the date of the mou? were we in session? >> yes, we were. the second mou involving mr. kind was signed by mr. leung september 18, 2022 and paul henderson september 19. the work order was signed in july and as i say i have no problem with that work order. it is a standard work ordered. i learned that one city department typically creates when another city department is doing work for them so think that is absolutely fine. it is for the work you have been doing but the mou involving mr. kind is something separate and it involves funding through the sda budget for a position. >> i have a follow-up comment. i think thought is obvious is we are board members, we are not authorizing

body to approve contracts. that is not our role. mr. leung obviously is a employee. they are very distinct legal obligations from board members versus employees and ability to speak on behalf of organizations. i do understand the record for transparency, however, the tone is incredibly i think problematic. it seems like there is a-as commissioner soo mentioned, a cloud being cast on dpa for doing what needed to get done. i want this commission to succeed. i want the oig office to succeed. i am grateful for the work that people have added on top of their very incredibly busy schedules and that investigations have not been stalled as a past prosecutor and someone who has done

investigations and prosecuted those cases. i'm clearly incredibly aware of evidence getting stale and not able to prove a case because it has gotten stale or witnesses being unable or not willing to participate as time passes. so, it is imperative for this work, the actual work, the heart of why we are here for this to be done. i am grateful for those things. i also want to comment that we are still not the department. we need to understand we are a oversight board. we are not a department. we do not act in the stead of the department. we act within what the charter says and if that's a issue and needs to be amended then i recommend you lobby to the different-lobby to the supervisors to revise the charter and put it again to the vote of

the people. i think it is important for us to ask these questions. i believe that we have gotten incredibly strong reasons as to why there was a increase of the change of the position to 8181. it is very clear a managerial position was needed. i also believe people should be paid for the work they do. if the work is being done and there is no indication because i heard no evidence that the dpa in any shape or form has any misconduct, inappropriately used funds, that the investigations are not accurate or complete. there is no evidence at all to me that indicates that dpa has not done what they are contracted to do, so i'm not sure why there is an attack. it seems there is a lot of personal attacks to

mr. henderson. his name keeps coming up all the time in these meetings, which i just don't understand why that's the case. unless there is a particular issue of misconduct or incompetence or anything that does-i want to hear that. i want to hear that because right now casting shadows is not helping. it is not moving forward. the 6 things that we are charged to do. so, i am thankful for the presentations. i am thankful for questions being asked, but i do not believe that in the process of collaboration and working with this agency that has more experience doing these things that has been doing the core work that is essence of what we are trying to do with the sheriff's that we treat them this way. i see no reason for that and i

would appreciate that maybe president wechter you rethink your tone. >> i like to request appoint of order. we are getting off track here. let mr. kind speak. >> pass it off to marshal kind. thank you guys. >> good evening board members. my name is marshal kind. i never envision attracting this attention starting the role. i wasn't involvep in a lot of conversations how the role was born but i can tell you about myself and what i hope to bring and demonstrate to be of value to this board in helping the board

realize (inaudible) in establish the office of inspector general sheriff department of accountability. i have been with the city county of san francisco as a practicing attorney 24 years. i spent first 10 years as 8127. i know all the roles there. i was a former trial prosecutor that tried many cases. a lot of my trials have been highly publicized in the media and they are available for you to research and look up. i have also spent a lot of time on the subject matters relevant to this particular line of work. every single case that comes in that involves resisting arrest is district attorney office or assaulting a peace officer requires we carefully analyze the use of force to determine whether it is appropriate and whether the officers acted appropriately. i have been involve d in police misconduct-(inaudible)

on the officer involved-responding to shootings in the community and conducted the investigations to determine the propriety of the work. i worked my way over 24 years through all of the ranks and all the classifications and all the steps between from the 8177 all the way up to a higher rank then 8181 to 8193. i served under 6 administrations all which have very vastly different philosophys and programs and policies that we have to implement and i assisted each administration with that. i also would like to point out that through the course of all the work i had a global view of the criminal justice system. developed a lot of expertise in a variety of subject matter relevant including 4th amendment search and seizure, 8 amendment, cruel and unusual punishment all of

which hopefully skills value to the administration and board. i also been involved over the past decade in upper management. i have been at 8181 or higher nearly a decade now and throughout the upper management role i engaged in a lot of infrastructure building that is very similar to the role that i have been tasked to do here. we have really modernized the district attorney system. i spearheaded the efforts to digitize all the work. at the time i first took over the role of division chief before becoming the chief assistant district attorney for the san francisco district attorney office, i started and completed the project of getting all of the legacy data and files from paper into digital. that was vastly accelerated during covid when we had to transition quickly to a paperless environment. we also

developed all kinds of work orders as well as working agreements and operational agreement with a variety of partner agencies where we were able to transition to a remote environment with the courts with the police department, with the sheriff department all by developing work sharing through electronic portals which never existed before 2020 and again, that was vastly accelerated because of the pandemic and the requirements of the city to reduce the working capacity within the office to 20 percent at the time. i also spearheaded the effort to on-board a new case management system for the district attorney's office. that process started in 2016. it went through a full rfp process where we went through several rounds of figuring out the budget for it. it required a rather complex mapping process in order to migrate all the data. we spent a lot of time

figuring out and trying to identify the perfect system for a very complex set of work-i would say far more labor intensive then the work hopefully that will take to identify an on-board the right case management system for sheriff department of accountability. that was realized a few months ago when we started the first phase of implementation. i can't emphasize enough how important having a solid case management system is for any modern department. the entire universe of work revolves around case management system. it is the central nervous system for any modern department and i think the district attorney office is served well with the new case management system. that's just a little about myself. the abridged version. i hope that it gives you a flavor of some of the skillsets i will

bring to this particular work. i think it is useful to contextualize why dpa is involved with assisting this board in building the office of inspector general. first it makes perfect sense. dpa is the older sibling or will be the older sibling. the work processes. the staffing. the operations. all the needs are going to be extremely similar to dpa. dpa is in the best position to look at its operations and identify what are the needs of this new department because they will be sibling departments, there will be tremendous amount of similarity between the two departments and the mission and work. of course, hopefully this new department and all your wisdom and experience we will come up with new invasions as well that

will certainly distinguish the sheriff department of accountability from dpa, but again, it is extremely similar. dpa also has been doing the work and lending support to every aspect of getting the board operational. in fact, when our secretary for this board was unable to attend today, our chief financial officer jumped right in into play the role of clerk from assembling and gathering all necessary to get the board up and running to having been doing the work for the last few years, dpa has been there to support the work to carry out the will of hopefully what the voters want and i'm here to hopefully management the effort and insure the work that has been done is currently being done and done pursuant to the letter of agreement,

improved and expanded. that we identify what the needs are appropriately, expend resources to gather those needs in this fiscal period and echo the importance of that from what nicole just described. and to hopefully craft and negotiate a plan of transition that will insure that work transfers from dpa to the sheriff department of accountability without crashing this new department before it has the resources to embrace all this new work. i think it is certainly useful also to point out the timeline for installing the inspector general really puts the work of dpa in a critical spot for this board and i'll explain why. in the last meeting we

certainly heard from the experts president wechter you brought dr. rosenthol and (inaudible) to explain what their thoughts are on identifying an ideal inspector general and also to explain the process in their experience. i also read dr. rosenthol's paper from surveying all the inspector generals around the state and around the country and some from canada. and it seemed all most in every situation it has taken considerable amount of time for every jurisdiction to identify the right inspector general and on top of that, what they described was after the inspector general started, there was a lot of start-up challenges and start-up problems, largely because once the inspector general gets installed that is only the beginning of

a very long road to establish a agency. there are no-in all those scenarios there was no infrastructure to support the inspector general day 1 and that posed lots of problems and as described many occasions it took 4 to 6 months to over sometimes nearly a year to identify the inspector general and it took maybe 2 years from there for the inspector general or oversight director to make the department operational. what i'm here to present today is that we can accelerate that considerably by allowing dpa to incubate this new department and stand it up to provide all the necessary support to build the infrastructure and get a lot of the materials ready to put the inspector general in the best place possible for successful department. i want to echo the

sense of urgency that board member afuhaamang expressed at the last meeting calling for this board to march in a timely manner and insure that perfect doesn't become enomy of the good. i take that she recognized that in the time it will take for this board to install the inspector general and establish the office through inspector general there is a lot of missed opportunities and i think it is worthwhile to validate the sense of urgency with very specific time sensitive reasons. first off, the work continues every single day. complaints don't stop just because the board needs the time to find and install a inspector general. it doesn't stop because the inspector general doesn't have resources to perform the work. that work is performed through dpa and has been performed and had opportunity to review a lot of the work and it has been done in a

exlempary way. the fact all the statutory deadlines have been met on all the serious cases, many of which involve sometimes half dozen, dozen of sheriff deputies because the nature of the investigation every critical incident is responded to by many different sheriff deputies. has been done really really well. we are going to work on expanding that work because not all the work that has been specified in the letter of agreement has been performed simply because there hasn't been the resources to do so. dpa took on the work without the work order without the funding and had been performing the work for a long time without any funding what so ever. it taxed dpa resources. conversations with the investigators it has over-extended the investigators and are pushed the envelope on

dpa falling within the budgetary means. it is important to realize if the funding stops dpa cannot continue that work and there simply will not be independent oversight. that will go back to the sheriff department. sheriff department will continue to do that work until the office of inspector general is established and starts performing mandates under the charter. the second reason is that-as nicole alluded to, we are in budget season already. the 5 year financial plan was due to the mayor's budget office on october 28 which we submitted for the sheriff department of accountability. i believe february 21 every department budget proposal needs to be submitted to the mayor's budget office and there will be a lot that will occur in those couple months.

between march and june there will be a lot of negotiations and discussions about what the budget needs will be to finalize the mayor position to the board of supervisors then it gets dissected by the budget and legislative analyst and presented for usually cuts to the board and the board budget appropriation committee. every year that budget appropriation committee warns if you do not spend the funds allocated you face cuts and we are headed into the budget season not in the position that budget season started last year. last year there was hundred million dollar surplus. the economic forecast going into the budget season is much worse. it is going to be more of advocacy will be needed to properly fund the sheriff department

accountability and even as you all know with the hundred million dollar surplus last year, there was a half million dollar budget cut from the department of accountability budget already, so headed into this budget season, it is important to keep in mind and in the back of mind what of the 13 principles for success of oversight agency is a adequate funding and resources which president wechter you may have credit for creating as well. it is also not lost on me that it is incredibly expensive to do business in san francisco. it is expensive to do business in san francisco, and it certainly will be beneficial for the board not just look at sheriff department

accountability budget last year. hopefully it (inaudible) as a zero sum game of just the sheriff department of accountability budget. we are all aware that the san francisco operating budget from last year $14 billion. just to put in perspective that is $38 million spent every single day. the allocation for the budget for public protection, that pool of money which funds $700 million to the police department $500 million to the fire department, $300 million to the sheriff department is $1.9 billion. the budget that is allocated for the sheriff department accountability is under $3 million a year. i think president wechter you pointed out in the very first meeting that there isn't enough to offer a salary to the department head that

is commensurate with other directors or similarly situated executives around the bay area. that is because bay area salaries are much higher then anywhere else. it certainly would be advantageous for the board not just to just look at it budget itself but entire budget. even if looking at the sheriff department of accountability budget of $3 million relative to the $300 million for the sheriff that is less then 1 percent of the over $1.9 billion allocated for public protection. it is 1/6 of 1 percent. i point it out because there is a lot of opportunity here to advocate to really shepherd and steward this budget to an amount that hopefully

will adequately allow the sheriff department of accountability to launch properly to be able to have the adequate funding and operational resources to do well, to be able to attract top candidates for the position so you all can select from the best. as you are aware there is contversity about the cost of installing a single toilet in san francisco. $1.7 million. you are asked to build a entire agency from scratch for a budget that is less then 2 public toilets. hopefully that puts that in perspective. one quick correction to the salary of the classification-i think the amount you are referring to $360 thousand is including all fringe benefits for the position. when you look at it from the perspective of the 8181 versus

8177 and i was a 8177 nearly a decade before getting promoted up, the difference really isn't that much or as large a difference as you might have thought because the 8177 is a deep classification with 16 steps and you progress through the steps based on the number of years of (inaudible) a number of years, so all most any attorney that you look for that is-or has 16 or more years experience is already going to be in the range of $245 thousand i think which is step 16 with longevity or a few years longer then 15 they are pushing $250 thousand. there is less then a $30 thousand differential

between 8177 equivalent number of year attorney versus 8181. hopefully that reduces the amount of concern you have with regards to what a difference it is between 8177 and 8181. the other thing besides budget is that i want to point out is that as we are going through this budget process, there needs to be a demonstration that the funds allocated to sheriff department accountability is being properly used towards the work through the work order, properly used to build infrastructure and properly being applied to that work. that demonstration, that exertion of the budget is what is persuasive to the powers that be in the mayor budget office in the budget-with the budget legislative analyst and with later on with the budget appropriations

committee. having those expenditures against the budget shows that they are being applied to productive uses to build this department. if and looking at the timeline and the timeline should raise a sense of urgency for all of you because if we are looking at all most from what dr. rosenthol described as miraculous amount of time to install inspector general even in three months or four months, when it is more likely to take six months or more. that already takes us into march or april. that's half the time that the budget would have been due already to the mayor budget office on february 21 and there will be a lot of missed opportunities there to advocate and discuss with the mayor budget office what else is needed to improve the opportunity for this

department to succeed. i also point out the fact that we are by the time you have inspector general it will at least be march, april if a candidate matches all the unicorn description that dr. rosenthol described at the last meeting. that also means there will be a salary savings across the board of .75 fte. three quarters full time (inaudible) at most a.25fte salary incumbrance up to that point which means you can apply all those salary savings right now to building the infrastructure on all the big ticket items like case management system. maybe purchase a vehicle. equipping all the staff before they start. if you don't

that budget becomes unspent and as you are aware government budgets do not credit for the money you saved in the previous year. they look how the money is spent and whether it is productively applied and what the needs are. it is useful to look from that perspective. one last thing to say about the budget is that as you pointed out this board has indicated interest in trying to elevate the job classification for the department head, inspector general. i think that makes perspect sense. that department head position as you pointed out is unlike any other. it is going to require that the inspector general build the department entirely from scratch and there will be challenges unique to this job none other department head has or had. yet, the job

classifications 0961 for department head 1 versus the other higher level classification, 962, 963, 964 for department heads 2, 3 and 4 are tied to certain factors the city enumerated for consideration on what the level of compensation should be for the department head. i also in my experience working through budgets and also in management of a much larger office have seen a huge recruitment retention issue with top talent because san mateo, santa clara, neighboring counties all have higher and better compensation packages then san francisco so it-in order to get the best possible candidates before you, really makes sense to work with all the powers that be, all the departments to see if you can work up the job classifications and three factors

enumerated. there are three factors enumerated by the city that identify what the level of classification should be. the first factor is the size and complexity of the organization. there are certain numbers of employees associated with each of the classes. it is not a (inaudible) but a factor. 1-60 for department head 1. 60-175 for 2, 175 to 800 for department head 3. the board loses on that argument because this is without a doubt a small department. the next factor is the number and nature of the function and programs of this particular department head. that is really up for inspector general to identify what are these programs that they want to-or he or she wants to pursue. what are the various types

of functions in addition to what is outlined in 4.137 of charter mandate he or she will want to pursue. you are certainly a variety of different ways to bolster that argument. building out additional functions. building out additional programming like having or creating a mediation program that is staffed by community members that will allow the inspector general to supervisor a much larger group of individuals in a more robust setting. creating community liaisons and are community bam basders to spread the word about the inspector general office but that will be all up to ininspector general once installed to do. the third factor and here this might sound

self-serving but the third factor is what are the levels of classifications and positions the inspector general supervisors? the higher level of classification built into that department the higher the level an argument can be made on that factor for inspector general salary. i point that out because you president wechter already identified that is a pursuit to try to elevate the compensation package for inspector general to attract top class of candidates this board i'm sure really wants to see. the last thing that is very time sensitive that should be done before an inspector general is established and that is really create negotiate and facilitate a carefully constructed transition plan for the work and

i'll explain why when i get to the next section. i'm not highlighting all these time sensitive issues for this board to rush the decision. i heard dr. rosenthol not set arbitrary deadlines and rush. this is the most important decision the board will make in vetting identifying and installing the right inspector general. there are a lot of factors that could potentially delay that and a lot of lost opportunities in that time. for example, if you don't have inspector general installed by march 3 board members term out and that creates potential uncertainty. hopefully all the board members will stay on to maintain continuity but that potentially adds

additional delays: described how there were so many factors that caused delays in all jurisdictions. you may not get after a diligent search all of the candidates or the types of candidates that you want and may want to go back and look again or advertise again. if you fiend a candidate from across the country, what is the timeframe for that candidate who may be gainfully employed in another position to disconnect from the work obligation there and move across the country? and all that is going to be highly dependent on whether or not you are able to create an attractive compensation package to get the candidates you want. what i am presenting to you and why i'm presenting to you all these really time sensitive issues is to highlight where dpa comes in and how dpa can mitigate a lot of these concerns to

afford this board the time and space that this board needs to establish its rules of order. draft the comprehensive mission statement. to meet with the community. identify what the community needs and wants are. to survey and evaluate the department and other departments and are to make recommendations about best practices pursuant to the charter mandates that vice president carrion had described and most importantly, the time that it will take for this board to seek profession and leadership without sacrificing all the good that can be accomplished in the meantime by allowing dpa to do this work to support this board and i emphasize full deference to what the board's mission and vision will be for the office of inspector general. i will now go through a high level plan. this is

somewhat synthesis of the plan that the 5 year financial plan submitted to the mayor budget office due on october 28 through the next slide. what i defined thin in the plan is front loaded in the next couple months how long it takes to install inspector general and this is before the inspector general is installed. what should hopefully happen after the inspector general is installed and of course this is going to be a iterative process every single year, 5 year plan, probably will be updated in terms of what the goals and objectives of the department are once we have the inspector general. but i want to focus first on how

important it will be to have a good transition plan in place. very simply put, we will manage all the work that is-has been done pursuant to the sheriff department and department of police accountability letter agreement responsibilities. that was a evolution from a earlier memorandum of understanding with the previous sheriff. in this particular realm, there are some very specific types of allegations that have been carved out. the serious allegations against law enforcement, sworn law enforcement employed by the sheriff department in largely 5 groups and 2 other categories that are at discretion of the sheriff department to refer. based on the limitation of resources from dpa,

the fact dpa was not funded for the work for a number of years only the first 2 and possibly the first 3 categories have received enough attention. and those categories are the use of force that causes injury or death. the use of a weapon or controlled device against a inmate and misconduct. the two other areas within the letter of agreement that really haven't been delved into which requires a much more global view and lot more complex analysis, which we hope to spend more effort with to generate the momentum to transition better work product and more work to the new sheriff department accountability is the area of pattern and practices of harassment, bias and retaliation against a inmate. those sometimes individual

insdants do not inform the pattern and practice and much more global view needs to be taken which is a much more labor intensive project and the last category and that is wreckless disregard for health safety and welfare of inmates. that has not been deeply explored, not had the resources to do so and probably requires time energy and resources dpa does not have. there are two areas that can be referred to for dpa investigation, in-custody deaths. if there is a aspect of in-custody death that needs to be investigated and officer involved shootings. there is one officer involved shooting i'm aware currently being

investigated. largely, that is a scope of work that within the letter of agreement we can expand and improve upon, but i point thought is a very narrow slice of the universe of work that the inspector general will be taking on. the mandate under 4.137 is far more expansive. it is everything. not just (inaudible) not just occurring in a custodial situation in the jail, it is every complaint and every complaint against ever employee, not just sworn but employees and contractors. there is a tsunami of work that hasn't been touched by independent investigation that will fall upon the shoulders of the sheriff department accountability office of inspector general potentially day 1 if

it is viewed that once an inspector general is appointed that the mandate of 4.137 now kick in that is potentially a very dangerous position for an emerging department to be in, because we are talking about hundreds, potentially thousands of cases that have to be reviewed, investigated and processed by the inspector general day 1. every single case as nicole alluded to has a statute of limitation under 3304 of the government code and that has been performed without missing any deadline up to this point. if we don't have a carefully crafted transition plan for the work negotiated with the sheriff department with a understanding that as the inspector general builds up the staff, we do not pass off all the work manitated you

will flood the inspector general office before there is staff, before there is infrastructure, before there is anything to process and you will end up setting the new inspector general office for failure before it started. it will immediately start blowing statute of limitations and do exactly what dr. rosenthol described as start up failure all most viewed universally in all of the agencies that they have seen surveyed and worked at with the exception i think dr. rosenthol described one jurisdiction that successfully launched and that is manitoba. which said why manitoba succeeded is because it took a year to find their executive director or inspector general and it gave manitoba 2 years running time to create the operation necessary before giving them all the

work. is that the amount of time this board wants to spend before creating the platform to start the work that the voters wanted two years ago? that is why it is important to carefully manage the responsibility and create a transition transition when the staff is ready at the sheriff department of accountability. as mentioned, from my experience and experience of dpa my experience before and experience of dpa, dpa is in the best position to really assess what the critical needs and operational needs and costs for the departments are advocate for that proper funding. nicole has prepared really a much more

practical understanding of what the budgetary needs are from the original much more theoretical budget. without any inspector general to steward this budget through the budget process, dpa is really in the best position to demonstrate why the budget allocated needs to be increased going into fiscal year 23-24. we can start building policy neutral infrastructure and there is procedures that can be established that insure the work. yes, i heard dr. rosenthol's warning about necessarily creating policies or building infrastructure before the inspector general is installed and setting a particular course for the office that the inspector general may not want. i'm here to assure this board is we can do it in a very policy

neutral way, and more importantly, these are all temporary. the inspector general is going to need an office to work in. if we do not do the work to find the facility space to outfit that facility space with office equipment, desks, chairs, phones, laptops, all the things employees need before-hand. of course they will be applied to this year's budget which will be reset next year, this year's budget will have a surplus for all those expenditures and you get to keep that in the following year. the other thing is having these policy neutral infrastructures and think is indisputebly things that will advance the office

rather then hinder it because they are not setting the inspector general in a particular direction. they will keep the staff organized for the timebeing until the inspector general decides to proceed any procedures in place, but insure a professional operating staff. it will insure that the staff has the equipment on day 1 necessary to perform the functions. and as i alluded earlier, the case management system, which is a huge project as indicated and experience at the district attorney office building case management system to meet all the requirements of the job requires a tremendous amount of examination of the work and building in the work processes but having the right case management system insure the success of the department for a variety of reasons. case management system that we have been

considering and evaluating ask built by sales force. it is highly highly customizable and adaptable. the largest expenditure is building out the system which can be applied to this year's-fiscal year budget and not encumber any future year budget accept for operating cost and licensing. what the case management system will do for the department is it will insure that we have a central hub for all information. it will be able to build out dashboards so that this board and the public will be able to see the work all most in real time as dashboards get issued and are publicly available. we will be able to at some point build out inactive dashboard where you filter out the information you like to see. we want to create a case management system also flexible enough to work with other case

management systems to build in work processes not just internally but also with all the other partner departments as board member soo pointed out. it is so important to have the it infrastructure in place for any department. it also by having a communicate with other departments [coughing] have the ability to partition to insure departments can keep whatever information is confidential within the department and communicate through api and program interfaces with each other so we have a seamless work process end to end. the other aspect of the case management system, it can take in information from a online portal so complainants have much more accessibility to making complaints and those complaints will be tracked end to end when the complaint is first made will be able to track every

single data point entered without redundancy reentering datsa over and over again and there is a huge benefit to that not just in the labor saving of not having employees enter information in various different places multiple times, not just as aggravate the employees that have to do it, but also reduce the amount of human error in the data. when you have to enter the same data multiple places it increases the opportunity there will be error in the data. this will make the data much more trustworthy and accessible to the board members and public. the other thing that having the case management system in place already before the staff come s in in my experience over 20 years at the district attorney office introducing existing staff to new work processes particularly new technology is a challenge in and of itself. when you have new staff already

acclimated to a certain work process it is quite a challenge to get them to adopt new processes and there is a lot of rejection for the new case management system for the outset. having the case management system and work processes established means when staff are on-boarded by the inspector general they will be trained up on the system and this is the only work process that they are acclimated 2 day 1. again, there is concern that maybe the case management system might not be to the specks of the inspector general, and i would say that this case management system offers complete customization. you can change the data points, change output and input features so there is a very little risk of that. more importantly, even if we expend the cost which is the heaviest cost in the first

year, that will be towards the budget that is not going to be fully expended anyway. in the following year if the case management system isn't working out the inspector general is free to find a new case management system. >> mr. kind, can you wrap it up? >> yes, sorry. i will go quickly. >> dan, i don't think we will have time for questions and public comment on this matter tonight so i think we have to continue it to our next meeting. >> okay. >> i would like to get to the last item about potential subjects for agenda items for future meetings because board members may have items they like us to bring up at future meetings. >> may i be recognized? >> yes. >> if you can finish in 5 minutes let's finish it. if not i

think we do want to-my main-i would prefer have other items tabled and focus on the future agenda items to prioritize. that is my-- >> i was a trial litigator so can speak with time limit. after sheriff department oversight board (inaudible) staff will have to be hired as indicated all the 4.137 mandates will be triggered at that point unless we craft and negotiate a plan transition plan. the inspector general at that point will be free to development his own evidence informed policy procedure and protocols. certainly hope there will be a more robust informational campaign that will include increasing accessibility to the

community and include more language accessibility. one idea would be to start gathering funds to create kiosks to make complaints strategically placed in certain locations so that there is more accessibility for making online complaints should a complainant not have access to the internet. inspector general will have to work with department of real estate at some point because the department of police accountsability doesn't have the square footage or enough real estate space to host an entire staff office adequately. it is

certainly envisioned by the department of accountability the inspector general is going to be fully autonomous at some point, not necessarily in this timeframe or any particular timeframe but it will take a considerable amount of time. we are here simply to support the effort, support this board's mission and vision and to hopefully help build the boat to get it to float. the inspector general will decide all the features of the boat and steer the boat in whatever direction the inspector general wishes to take the department. again, thank you for this board's time. i really appreciate your time and efforts in this cause. i'm available for questions if you have any. i know i took up an inordinant amount of time but this i assure is a abridged version. >> i have quick

question relating to it. we know the sheriff department does a lot of data collection. (inaudible) still by hand. is there a way you could make recommendations to a it system that would be compatible with case management system because having been on the commission working with the police department i know they are light years ahead on the it system and gone to implementing justice which helps with the da office and data collection so would you have recommendations for that? >> i do. we are already in communications with the sheriff department on a number of observations i have had. we have certainly discussed technology and multiple different areas. one obviously is in case management system and being able to process everything electronically. all is a ia prosystem i have a follow up

meeting with the sheriff department next week to look whether or not we can build out work processes and application programming interfaces with the sales force system. the other alternative might be and this is something that is a feature of other case management systems i have seen is building out a portal from the case management system so the sheriffs can directly inpt the information in the system so we have a integrated system until which point the sheriff system is able to interface directly with the case management system. the other technology infrastructure piece through anecdotally for many investigations we have seen that may offer a lot of benefits and might be use ful for the board is more surveillance system within the jail. we have seen that surveillance cameras offer just like body worn cameras offer a lot of insight into the investigations offer a lot more clarity to investigations but we

are also aware there are limitations to the current system how many cameras and where the cameras are located, so that only benefits the investigations and also benefits all the sheriff deputies that do great work in insuring we see exactly what occur, but it also allows the sheriff to hopefully address a lot of the shortage and staffing that they are suffering from because having more cameras means that a single deputy, not suggesting any way the sheriff should give more work to a already very taxed staff, but a single deputy can monitor a lot more space behind a monitor with cameras that cover a lot more space within the jails as well. those are some of the ideas that we are already discussing. >> i think my question also leads into the mandate of the board. it is inspector general job to pull

data but we are responsible generating the reports as a board to the quarterly reports as well as annual report. that would be quite taxing to not only inspector general his or her office as well as the sheriff staff to have to really go through the cumbersome on paper it system. >> appreciate that perspective because i took over as division chief at district attorney office we were keeping statistics with hash marks on yellow pads and we modernized the system in a way that allows us to illustrate the work with a lot more granular clarity for the public and managers to assess the work, so having a case management system built out before hand allow the inspector general to assess the work that has been done because all that will migrate into the

case management system and really make informed decision whether to go based on historical data. >> it is now 653 and think we are required to take general public comment before we adjourn. i know i'm going to have questions for you mr. kind so think we have to continue this to the next meeting. dan can we take general public comment? >> yes president wechter. at this time the public is welcome to address the board up to 2 minutes for items that did not appear on tonight's agenda but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board (inaudible) but may provide a brief response. as reminder general public comment are for items that did not appear on tonight's agenda.

those present please line up at the podium. those not present call 415-655-0001 and enter access code 24974407820. press 3 to raise your hand to be added to the queue. we have one caller. thank you caller, you have 2 minutes. >> hello. >> you have two minutes. >> first and foremost, i have been listening very carefully to this meeting, and we the people agreed by

putting this measure on a ballot that we have a say in the deliberations. as you can see in this particular meeting you have miserably failed. the chair should be very careful how he conducts himself. in san francisco as you can see from the other commissioners who gave their input, they are very astute and stellar, so we have to go forward, but let me

warn you, this divisiveness at every level must stop. i think- >> (inaudible) >> orientation is in order so you really understand your mission of justice. you are very lucky the department of police accountability has gone out of its way to help you. again, my name is francisco decosta and i will be addressing this meeting on my blog. >> thank you caller, your time is up. >> is there any other public comment? >> no more. >> okay, it is 657. mr. kind, thank you very much for your

presentation. sorry we have to trunicate it because we have to end at 7. thank you ms. armstrong. do we have motion to adjourn? >> no, your honor, sorry, your honor. trial experience. i like to be heard and make a motion to postpone all items 6, 7, 8, and 9 and for the future agenda items i request two items be added they are 1, that we find out information from other oversight boards that did not use a national executive firm to find what their process was and if they had any issuess a a result of that and number 2, that we prioritize the appointment of ig that we prioritize the conduct community outreach and receive input, which includes

what a previous commissioner mentioned of the social media policy, and that we prioritize the report that are due. quarterly report and the march 1 report since those are 4 of our primary directives. >> okay, if you want to draft those items for the agenda. >> yes. >> determine who would do the research regarding the other agencies. regarding their recruitment. >> how is the research done for the past-the one presentation and information? was it you president wechter that reached out to your colleague snz >> that is correct. >> i ask since you have a direct line to more oversight boards then i do can you please outreach to your colleagues regarding the oversight boards that have not used an executive firm? >> i could put a

message on the naco list serves. >> i would like to be included as a contact. >> i will pull in contacts i met at the conference. >> wonderful. great. thank you. >> i just had one other item and this would be jur are germane to the public and need not be the very next meeting but it fairly urgent about [coughing] resignation because of conflict issues so i want to make sure we are paying attention to jail health. >> sorry, i couldn't hear what you said? >> i want to have the jail health issue on a future agenda item but not necessarily the very next item, but given the dph had-had a jail health resignation and potential conflicts with having a second job. whether we were paying clos