please stand by for the san francisco police commission meeting of march 8, 2023.

>> of the san francisco police commission. >> the chair called the meeting to order. if you could please rise for 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. >> vice president carter oberstone, if i can take roll. >> please.

[roll call] >> also with us tonight we have chief scott from the san francisco police department as well as acting executive director diana rosen steen is also in route. >> item 1. >> item 1, general public comment. the public is welcome to address the commission within the subject matter jurisdiction of the police commission. rules of order neither please or dpa personal eleanor commissioners are required to respond to questions. you may submit public comment on the either of the following ways e-mail the police commission

sfpd@sf.org or the postal service public safety building (indiscernible) if you like to comment please approach the podium. >> food evening everyone. i'm here concerning my son murdered august 14, 2006 to this day his case isn't solved. i know i was here last week concerning what do we do about this 250 thousand reward in no one has come forth and we talked about other ways that a person can come forth. concerning the unsolved homicides. as a

mother, like i said there is more then one-sorry, i wasn't prepared. again, i just bring my pictures. this is my son. lifeless laying on a gurney, dead. i come here with these names of the persons that murdered my son. hannibal thomas, backwards, harris moffit, jason thomas and anthony hunter and marcus carter. one is deceased and believe it is him, marcus. you have all the names of the perpetrators that murdered my child. i come here last week i was very emotional and still emotional. i had one of his friends tell me he came and saw my son and watched the

ambulance turn him over and how he found out that that was my child. he said, he didn't know who he was until they turned him over and i said what did he look like? he said he was gray and already gone so that bothered me and i needed to hear that because it will make me fight harder then what have been doic and continue to come to ask for justice for my son. my 17 year old boy who was murdered. thank you. >> members with any information regarding the murder of aubrey call the tip line as 415-575-4444. >> good evening. my name is chris executive director of san francisco municipal

association. i sent a letter to the xhilgz having to do with a meeting that occurred february 15 where one of our members and one of city employees was interrogated with a effort to seem to entrap him by commissioner oberstone. the problem that we have with this is this seems to be something that is occurring with a number of city employees and this body is no different. the folks that are on the police command staff have over 400 years of collective professional experience. they are city employees who have given a lot of their lives over to working for the city and as you just saw, this is not a easy job. to make it harder by bringing folks into these commission meetings and interrogating and only to it seem to entrap them does not seem fair at all. i think one of the problems that i saw with the meeting was that it was the lack of respect. these people have been

city employees a very long time and they don't come here for that type of treatment. so, i would expect in the future when commissioners have speaking to city employees these people again have dedicated a long time of their lives and at the expense of families in some cases to come and serve the public. they actually deserve the same respect that they give to people and constituents in the itisy city and county of san francisco. if you have questions, i'm open to hearing them. >> i want to thank you for coming. i want to also thank you for writing the letter. i think that we all

experience this issue and even as we may discuss and disagree on solving problems, i feel like it is really important, especially for moral in the department to be respect ful, so do you have suggestions on sort of how we can move forward out of this? i know we are not on the agenda but it is great to hear from you. >> what i suggest is that people be treated the way they want to be treated. i was oen a commission before, there were issues and building inspections commission was not a easy commission to be on, and one reason why i was asked to be on the commission because the way city staff were treated. city inspectors are constantly being leaned on by contractors and what have you so these jobs are already hard enough as it is. many people that work for the city have to file form 700 and

look at secondary employment. they are under a lot of scrutiny as it is. to put that in public for my point of view is not appropriate. before those type of things are brought forward there should be consideration that a number of these folks come here because they want to be police officers from the get-go. now some of these folks have been here for decades and so to actually-and i'm not casting aspersions to the commission. one thing that i always been mindful of is people come on to these commissions to do something for the community, to bring forward their ideas so that the work can improve. there are people on this staff that have done nothing but that. they come here to improve the way that people work, not only for themselves their colleagues but for other police officers. it is hard enough to recruit and now will be hard to keep people in command staff.

these people bropro-gress through the system, become command staff officers and we want to keep them so that is what i suggest. >> again, thank you for being here. >> thank you for your letter. thank you for your comments tonight and i think it is no secret that a number of people who work for the department are upset the way i questioned a senior member of department staff and chief scott suggested i attend a command staff meeting to hear folks concerns and i thought that was a great idea and look forward doing that and i think a important part of all the job s as commissioner is hear feedback from the community. we don't want to don't want to hear and want to hear. that is how democracy works so look forward to that. i didn't know you were going to speak today but since you did i will offer a public response in

addition to our meeting that will take place in a couple weeks. there is a big difference between doing your best and falling short and willfully disregarding your obligations and the events that caused that hearing to take place fall into the ladder camp. this isn't a case of a simple mised deadline. this is a case of going back to it doj report where the u.s. department of justice highlighted that problems with the police department hamstringing the commission ability to enact policy, so what happened is a senior member of the department was well aware of his obligations to assist in the revision of a very important commission policy, brazenly ignored all the deadlines, and didn't even take 5 minutes to raise his hand and say that he might need an

extension to carry out his important functions. allowing something like this to go on goes to the very heart of how our system of government works in the city. if a single employee can press pause on any commission policy for any reason or no reason at all, then it is impossible for us to carry out our official duties on this commission, and that behavior is obstruction of the commission charter functions. what happened was critically important. now, i understand that some people didn't appreciate the length at which i questioned the member, and in ret row spect it seems i could have questioned him for 10 minutes fewer and gotten the same result, but hindsight is 20/20. what i thought

is necessary to send a clear message that type of conduct is not permitted and we cannot do that and there are simple procedures such as asking for extension of time if deadlines can't be met but we cant have people simply ignoring deadlines all together and ignoring their responsibility. if it took 40 minutes of time of questioning to get a year or two years of compliance that we never have a situation like that again, i think that is a pretty good return on investment for the commission's time. the last thing i'll say is that a lot of folks that are so aggrieved by the questioning are the same folks who watch clips of their favorite senator in washington questioning members of the federal government about important issues of public interest and cheer it on and think it is

great when they say see elizabeth warren questioning a member of the u.s. doj so they understand that--so they understand that effective government oversight sometimes requires asking hard questions. sometimes requires tense moments of questioning. but for some reason they don't feel that that same effective government oversight belongs here in san francisco as relates to the oversight of our police department and i'll say i couldn't disagree more with that double standard. at the end of the day, the buck stops with the 7 people sitting up here as it relates to the development of policy, no one will save us if things go off the rails. it is up to each of us up here to exercise our important obligations, that is exactly what i did and

that's why i thought it was important to call the hearing. thank you and i look forward to speaking with command staff about this matter in a couple weeks. >> thank you. your comments say a lot about the commission. thank you. >> line item 2 adoption of minutes. action. for the meeting of february 15, 2023. amended. >> motion for the minutes. >> second. >> second. >> members that like to comment regarding line item 2 adoption of minutes please approach the podium. there is no

public comment. on the motion- [roll call] >> you have 7 yeses. >> line item 3, chief report. weekly crime trends and public safety returns. provide overview of incidents or event in san francisco that have impact on public safety. unplanned events will be limited to determine whether to calendar for future meeting. >> thank you sergeant youngblood. good evening commissioners, president elias, vice president carter oberstone acting director roseen steen and the public. to highlight the crime trends, i

won't repeat what is posted but i want to highlight the biggest area of concern is the increase in homicides from 4 this time last year to 7 year to date. majority gun related homicides and that is something the department is paying particular attention to. on the converse side good news, our overall shootings are down by 3, 29 this time last year to 26, which is a 10 percent decrease from this time last year. our total gun violence victims of gun violence is flat at no change this time last year. 33 this time last year, 33 year to date so shootings is part of the overall goal to reduce the number of gun related homicides and i'll talk what we are doing to do that in a minute. as far

as major incident this week we had one homicide during the reporting period in central districtt a pier 5. this is february 27 at 1 a.m. in the morning. the witness heard a pop fallowed by a male yelling, the witness wents outside saw victim against the wall and called 911. the victim was pronounced at the scene-this is ongoing investigation, no arrests made at this time. there is also a suspicious death oen it first of march at 9 07 p.m., 200 block of taylor. the victim and -in an apartment. left the victim there and short time later the aquateance called the residents and stated they were smoking a unknown substance that could have possibly been fentanyl or crystal meth. the resident came back to the apartment early in the morning around 3 a.m. and saw early in

the morning of 3-1 and saw the victim asleep on the floor. resident left and when they returned the victim was not breathing. 911 was called and that person was later pronounced so that was ruled a suspicious death and we'll wait on the medical examiner determination as to the cause of the death. there 7 non injury shootings of this reporting period, 2 in the southern district, 2 in bayview, 2 unknown locations and 1 in the ingle side district. they don't appear to be related. all 7 are ongoing investigations with no arrests made yet and i go through the locations of 200 block of 9th street in the southern. also 900 block of v avenue on treasure island in the southern. 2 in bayview were fitzgerald and jennings, one on 28 february, the other unit block of george court the 4th

of march and then the 2 unknown we are still trying to determine exactly where those two happened. the last shooting was ingleside on the sal. this victim was struck all of the victims apparently are in non life threatening conditions so they will-are expected to survive the shootings and all investigations are ongoing. last two things to report is, significant arrest in the bayview district. this is the 1,000 block of kansas street where a small baby was-there was a attempt to kidnape the baby. the victim was able to get away from the suspect and suspect tried to run but apre-handed a short time later by officers so that case is-has been presented to the district attorney office and charges have been filed on the case. there is also an

incident on the reerden high school grounds. a battery that occurred may 2. officers dispatched to a large fight at the gymnasium. they assisted the officers, assisted with dispursing the large crowd and learned the injured victim was a basketball player and the happened during a game. the victim punched behind from a player from the opposing team which resulted in a large fight and brawl. no arrests made but that is ongoing investigation. tenderloin, the operation to the disrupt the narcotics dealing in tenderloin is still ongoing, still very good community feedback what they are seeing in the tenderloin and there are still significant challenges. one of the things that i want to report to the public and commission is increase in the seizure of fentanyl. there is a 63 percent increase in

fentanyl year to date. we have -trying to do the math. over 50 thousand grams of fentanyl. this time last year is just over 20 thousand grams. fentanyl is the focus. the arrests are up as well as on narcotic dealings. in the past 2 weeks there were 26 arrests for possession for sale, so that operation will continue and again part of our goal is to do everything we can to disrupt the narcotic dealing and includes a number of strategy including the presence plain close operation seizure of fentanyl, legal seizure of fentanyl and not allowing the drug dealer tuesday

post up on the corners. still having challenges in the overnight hours and have to continue to make adjustments there but so far just at a public gathering yesterday with residents and business owners of the tenderloin and they are seeing progress they are pleased with but we is a long way to go. let me be clear about that. that is the report for this week. happy to answer any questions. >> thank you chief. commissioner walker. >> thank you for that report. i know you also met with folks in the mission. i think this conversation is connected to the discussions about the budget and especially the additional budget to add officers and i know it also includes money for expanding the reach of the ambassador program. is there

discussion about training? i know there's also talk about the danger in some of the areas and there is a gap between the officers and the alchemy so wonder if you all are talking about that? >> yes. that is an ongoing discussion and ongoing strategy to support the work that urban alchemy and other-from the ambassadors, city ambassadors, sfpd ambassadors to coordinate the work to enhance public safety in the areas deployed. with urban alchemy particular ly in this area, civic center and tenderloin that is effective in many locations i just mentioned and what we found to be the best formula-nobody expects urban alchemy to take on criminal activity. what they are very good at doing is

connecting with the community members, once a corner or street is cleaned out they maintain that location and that has paid dividends cross the city. if you look at area around bill graham which we had challenges with narcotic use and the like, that area is pretty clean lately and urban alchemy helped maintain. the discussions are ongoing. particularly the tenderloin, captain chan is working with urban alchemy to make the best of the partnership. you mentioned the mission and didn't include this in the report but will take this opportunity. there was really good collaborative planning done to address some of the prostitution activity on cap street in the mission. a lot of community complaints, neighborhood complaints about this activity and it isn't new activity, it just got to a fever pitch with

people's frustration and take hats off to and say thank you to assistant chief lazar and many others. assistant chief lazar walked the beat after midnight to get eyes on and captain at mission put together a good plan that we will have to sustain to address the issue and part of the plan includes rescuing the victims, human trafficking victims, but it also includes traffic enforcement, road barricades to disrupt activity and the results so far is very good. the community is very happy. i think a week ago there was a community event commissioner benedicto was there, thank you very much commissioner for going, to replace of what was going on there with a community event i think is a significant turn-around so our challenge now is to keep this going and to sustain it. it

speaks to really what perform and the community policing part of reform is all about because at the end of the day all these things are put into place to make us more effective and also to be able to collaborate with the very community we serve, so that is happening both in the tenderloin and the mission and so far so good but we still have a long way to go. we have to sustain the work. >> are the other departments coordinating with you, for instance dpw and public health? that's some of the issue is that it isn't just the police that should be out there, but we haven't coordinated that very well, so hopefully that is within the budget. like the cross training of training folks when to bring police in and bh to reach out more to dph. >> thank you for that. we have to continue to do that better. it is not

just the police department lifting any of the is situations. dph and public health needs to be in that. public works, homelessness supportive housing and they all are. one of our commitments to work better together because we cannot work in silos. it is challenge when one department tries to take on their piece without collaboration with the other departments so we are doing that better and there is more work to be done as well but the mission incident public works was involved, supervisor office involved, we have non profits involved, so it is a community effort. scrrks >> great work. i think that is what it will take. thank you. >> commissioner yee. >> thank you very much president elias. chief scott, i noticed overall crime report from last week to this week and violent crime dropped

14 percent and also on the property crimes dropped 27 percent. your total drop or reduction in crime was 26 percent. wondering if you have a reasons whether the-because we are short on staff where there was additional overtime of officers that contribute to this reduction? >> the overtime helps sure up gaps so that helps. i can't attribute all the reduction to that but it does help. the other thing that i think is the focus in some of the areas for instance in the tenderloin, we do know from data that a lot of the violent crime in the tenderloin or significant portion of it particularly in homicides are related to two things, street conditions and some of the narcotic sales but goes along with that.

disrupting that activity and disrupting the narcotic sales we expect it to have some impact on reduction in violent crime. some of the strategies we are working on and the southeast part of the city particularly the bayview and parts of the southern go around really trying to get to most at risk and get them to better place of services. scip and entities like that. you all have met officer johnson and some of the people that work really on the community side of this equation and they are doing very good work. the cvrt to get the right people together to prevent retaliatory shootings. that is part of the strategy. when we hear something that might spark gun violence we get in front of it trying to get the right people in the room to intervene and they have done a really good

job at that. homicides are up but shootings are down. and i think that is directly attributed to these strategies and i hear members of the community that the get involved in the intervention and the belief is there are things that have been snuffed out because the right people got involved and got the right community people involved in these conversations and i think that prevented some of the shootings so continue with that strategy. a lot to builds on but we have some of the roithd right people in the right places. >> i want to follow up on the tenderloin. it was close to a year ago, commissioner byrnes and myself went up to your office and discussed the issues of the tenderloin and staffing and making sure their community is safer because i remember

driving down hyde street and i think the only clear lane was the center lane, so i have seen the improvement that's on that area in the tenderloin. like to see it continue to improve better. as last week the community has spoke and respond to the changes in there. i guess we are headed in the right positive direction. i hope you continue that and make it safe for all. thank you very much chief and to your command staff and members for keeping us safe. >> thank you. >> commissioner byrne. >> thank you president elias. two points to the chief. how long will the tenderloin operation continue? >> the thing with the tenderloin, we did less then a year permanently transferred officers to it tenderloin, i think at the time 20.

sustainability is more possible because those officers now have been there. they are engaged. we will continue to go in the tenderloin. we do still occasionally move additional officers in the tenderloin. what we have been doing the last couple weeks if the tenderloin needs support to address it drug dealing we move officers there so that will continue for the for seeable future. we still have challenges overnight. i have been up late at night and you have as well and sometimes when officers are off midnight there is less deployment so we have to fix some of that, but the effort will continue. tenderloin-the one station in the city that is fully staffed actually they are a couple officers over. >> but there is a increase in officers in the last month and that's the swing shift and midnight shift?

>> some is just reallocating what chapten chan has but there is increase -today is wednesday, so if we need extra support officers are sent to the tenderloin because wednesday is usually heavy day for deployment and we have done this in other districts in the bayview with gun violence but it is a focus to disrupttuate what is going on with the drug dealing and stabbing. >> chief, when you brought up the rearden high school, i want the record to be clear that the reerd rearden coach and administration kept all most all the players on the bench. the thing deteriorated because the out of continue high school coach lost control of all his player jz why sfpd was called. not to say the cause of the fight, and this instance i

don't think it is-i know there was no intent to disparage reerden but what reerden did given the circumstances the coach and adults is to be commended because they kept it from completely deteriorating. >> thank you for that and there was no attempt to disparage but thank you for the clarification. >> sergeant. >> members that like to comment regarding line item 3, chief report please approach the podium. >> good evening. i like to use the overhead again. we were talking about the-all the killings that been happening now and i know-i was going to put this down. we are talking about unsolved homicides and all the killings. one killing is too much. you see

all these homicides, only a few have been solved. watt do we do? we had a presentation about this here, about zero dollars being paid in a decade and there was a presentation here. i haven't heard anything about this anymore. there was suggestions that should be made that supposed to be done with this presentation how to solve unsolved homicides and what other ways we can do it. i haven't heard anything since this article has come out accept for last week. it was brought up. why don't we make room for this to happen for the unsolved homicides? i bring this again. this is me standing over my son. no mother wants this. that is who ii come back every

week because this is what they left me with. a dead son. he was full of life. full of life. what do we do? i need answers. what other way can we solve this? the presentation said something would be done. i haven't heard anything since then. please,-- >> line item 4, dpa director report. report on activities and announcement. discussion is limited to determine if any calendar issue- >> good evening president elias, vice president carter oberstone, chief scott, members of the public, fellow

commissioners. i want to start out on a happy note. today is international women's day and i want to wish all of my fellow women that make this city work and a happy international women's day. i also like to apologize for being late today. the traffic i have never seen traffic that bad so sincere apology. i don't ever show up late so my apologies. this is a first. i'll go through the numbers and then i have some interesting stuff to discuss with everybody. the cases opened as compared to last year are down from 117 to 112 cases closed. also down from 121 to 117. we currently

have 273 cases pending and have sustained 8 cases so far. have mediated two cases so far this year, and currently we have 24 cases that are past 270 deadline, 16 of them are-in terms of weekly trends, the current level-we received 13 cases this past week and the allegations that have been complained about the most are an officer failed to take required action. and that an officer displayed threatening intimidating or harassing behavior. these are allegations that require investigation and that's what we will do. we have had-the most number of cases open this week related to officers in the tenderloin and richmond station oddly enough. i do want to

talk about dpa outreach efforts this past week. investigators presented at hays valley community meeting to answer questions about our organization and provide information about the discipline process. we also presented at bayview station community meetings and hot off the press earlier today all of our mediators received implicit bias training today and had a guest appearance. a guest speaker that came. captain canning spoke to all the mediators today and our mediator director and senior investigatoral (indiscernible) is in the audience to answer any questions thepublic may have about mediation or investigations in general. i do want to talk a little aboutpeneding discipline cases. currently we have 87

cases that are pending with the chief for chief hearings. those are cases where the chief has notified the officer he intends to impose discipline and the officer requested a hearing on the issue. i have good news and bad news. so, let's start-we'll mix it up. here is the problem, about 25 of them are over two years old and that's a problem. 25 of the 87 are over 2 years old. and that's a problem. it is a problem because those particular officers are not receiving the dist plin that we have intended for them, number one, and number two, it twarts the process of discipline. i know some of these type of cases are out of the chief control because there are people on leave, different

types of leave, et cetera, but many are not. i have been going to the different stations and doing trainings and as i look in the audience i'm like, wait a minute, are you supposed to have a chief hearing soon? some delays are due to rescheduling of the parties for sure, but some delays are also do to rescheduling from the deputy chief to the extent we can control that i think it is important to control that. i know sfpd had been hoping to alleviate back log with a mou with the police officer slgz to deal with written reprimands rchlt i'm not sure that is adequately addressing the back-log and dpa has concerns we expressed to the chief and legal department about that mou. however, i want to focus on the positive right now and moving forward. i do believe that we have a viable

collaborative solution to the problem moving forward. we are hoping to incorporate into dgo2.07 with written directives and (indiscernible) who we met with today, maybe yesterday, can't remember anymore, language that will require that the hearing officers that are assigned to these cases will conduct hearings within 180 days of the officer notifying the chief that they are requesting a chief hearing and that these hearing officers will be required to issue their recommendations to the chief within 90 days. assuming that language makes it through concurrence and meet and confer, we believe moving forward there shouldn't be a back-log if we set these parameters in place. mrs. kaywood director of policy will present the idea and

the details to you during her report in april so you will get the actual language as well as the flush out the numbers but i wanted to give you all a heads up on that issue. i do have some additional comments that i will save as we call the different agenda item said. dp after a does not have anything in closed session. we have senior investigator ali in the audience if anybody has questions. you can also contact us by phone at 415-241-7711. you can look us up on our website, sfgov.org,/dpa. you can google us. we are here. i'm happy to field any questions you may have with respect to my report. >> quick question. you said

how many-88 chief hearings? >> at this point we have 87 hearings pending. >> so, am i correct in understanding that moving forward the solution is that you will get 180 days to have a hearing plus 6 months then get another 3 month s for the decision so 9 month total from the moment that a notice goes out? that seems like a long time. >> considering that some of the cases are going back to 2015, 2016, 2017 there are cases pending that are old. we think that is a considerable improvement and i think we also have to take into consideration everybody's schedule. that is the drop dead dead pp lines assuming continuances granted, assuming there are other issues unforeseen emergencies taken care of. i think that is a reasonable estimate of time. >> i guess here is my issue, director henderson

brought the issue to the commission we were alarmed by the numbers and he is reporting every week and the week before last i asked 88 seems like a lot and there was no-it was like okay and then the chief i asked the chief why there is 88 why haven't we gotten the number down and how old is the oldest case and the answer is we are working on solutions to with respect to the continuances to get this number down. it just seems the number isn't going down since it was first brought to our attention and it seems very problemtaic for the opponent you raise which is, if there are outstanding cases, how--the public brought to your attention that are not resolved for years on end, that really does disservice to the public who file these complaints with dpa. and it is also not fair for officers who are not being-the subject of

discipline and to have coworkers who have open discipline cases for years and they pick up a new case and there is no consequence for that in terms of progressive discipline because that is the model that is used. >> i agree with you, however dpa really doesn't have much control over the schedules of deputy chiefs who are assigned to hear these cases, or-it takes at least 3 or 4 moving parts to have these hearings. it takes a deputy chief, it takes a poa representative, it takes the officer and dpa. i assure dpa unless there is a dire emergency that we do make all efforts to be at each and every hearing when it is first assigned to us. to the extent that we can control the schedule by being there and being available we always make ourselves available

and rearrange or schedule. there is not much i can do or we can do with respect to the schedule of everybody else involved in those hearings. >> let me turn it to the chief. chief, what steps can be taken so we can rectify the situation because i raised the issue a couple times? >> long-term i think it will take a policy change. >> policy change in terms of what, creating deadlines? >> not the deadlines. let me hear your question first. >> go ahead. >> the way the policy is written the chief hearings are the responsibility of the deputy chiefs or djo. four years ago brought commanders into the union or association and part of the desire to do that is it separate from the group so the plan was at some point to have

commanders take on the role. we only have 6 deputy chiefs. better part of last year, only had 4. had chiefs off on significant injurys and still have people off work. six became four. we had all most complete turn over in the deputy chief rank so it is a matter of not enough people to do it and the other thing is when people retire, which that rank turned over in the last 2 years twice, you have to reassign the cases. i'm sure the commission can appreciate that because you center the same issue. some is just the numbers. i think we have more discipline cases now then years ago too, so the longer term solution is the policy change to get more people to hear these cases, the shorter term solution is things we already put in place is to be strict on the continuances as much as we can

do that. somebody is off work on a injury not a lot we can do. or sickness or illness, but be strict on continuances, tightening up our internal processes. the cases that are --i don't think we that many that are 2015, 2016. i think most of those are cleared out. >> to be fair they are usually ones that are where somebody is on long-term disability. i know somebody from 2017 where someone is on disability. >> i think it is helpful to have breakdrown of the numbers? >> how? >> how many are on disability. how many are old and stagnant. how many are on leave. stuff like that. >> i would ask that is something i think sfpd has access to. that would require us to-i think we

probably could but we would just be asking sfpd for that. >> chief can you provide the breakdown of the 87 cases? tell the age of the cases and i asked for that before. out of the 87 cases how many are told if you will or pending because of the officers is unavailability or being out. how many are because of continuances so we can get a better idea and we should probably agendize this for friday. >> that is the continuous will be a big issue. combination of on all sides being continued so that is the biggest issue by far. >> not sure we keep track of the continuances. i think it is easier to see who is on disability rather then- >> provide as much information as you can. i think we need a better picture what is happening because we are not getting it. >> for clarity sake and completeness sake, these are just dpa cases so there could

be other cases from internal affairs that are pending. chief hearing but i dont know-we at the dpa would not know about them. >> you should include those too. >> sure. >> chief just want to get a clarification on your answer to president elias question when you said the long-term solution is get more people to hear the cases. were you referring to commander or- >> yes. >> okay. just wanted to clarify. >> if i may claireify, djo2.70 language we are asking for inclusion of commanders as possible hearing officers so the language does reflect that request. >> when is 207 up for revision? >> the draft is in. i don't know off it top of my head but the draft is already created and all that is exchanged. >> okay. >> it should be soon. within one 120days. within 90 days. >> alright.

commissioner benedicto. >> thank you. i think some questions were answered. i think the out of 87 the most notable was there 25 that are over 2 years old. that is the number we want to focus see go down. again, with caveat that some have disability issues. would it be possible for dpa to add that as a line for the report so in addition to cases pending with chief that subset that is over two years old? >> yes. >> that is 25 and hopefully with time- >> i think both though, the total- >> the total and the number on disability and number on-if that is something that is better obtained by the chief then it can be included in the chief report. the reports are back to back and information is the same so who ever

is better to do it but something the commission needs to keep a close eye on moving forwards. it does sounds there are positive changes in 2.od7 but that is coming up in april. probably won't be fully implemented to the summer at the earliest so are there specific steps the department is taking especially for those 25 that you can-happening now? >> one of the-i think most important thing is try to limit as much cases continued when on calendar. things happen, life happens. we had a rash of people off in the past year. covid has been a issue. we had people who have had covid multiple times and those type of things so some of that is beyond control, but what we instructed our

continues to do is manage attorney, is to scrutinize the continuances on all sides because you have multiple parties that have to get their schedules together for these cases and so that can be a problem and has been a problem. >> that instruction has gone out to the deputy chiefs and legal to limit continuances? do you expect then understanding these things take time, we should see that 25 number go down in the next 6 months? >> as far as the older cases, yes. the overall numbers, really depends how many people appeal. can't predict how manyy officers appeal their cases but the number that exist, those numbers if they are in a bubble they will go down. >> why i focus on the 25 cases that have real significant signs of age. that is it had number that won't grow as new cases are filed, only

as more time passes so i think it is great if we report to the public later this year that that number of 25 as we included in the report is declining and hopefully at some point composed only of those with disabilities and on leave. thank you chief. i also just want to-glad that the mediators underwent the implicit bias trainingism i had the privilege meeting with the mediators last year. the meadation program is a excellent program, a great restorative justice program and real credit to the mediators. hope they know the commission appreciates their great work if you can pass that along. >> thank you. one other suggestion i could make is that one of the issue s that we have with the cases that are pending with the chief is that there are some cases where

an officer has-multiple officers and one officers in a particular case will have a case pending with the commission and there are other officers who will have a a case pending with the chief and sometimes the officers that have a case pending with the chief are strung along until the commission is done with the case because the thought process is that the commission case should go first. not necessarily sure that that is the best practice, but that is something we can also explore moving forward to help the backlog. there are going to be situations where the outcome of the case before the commission is going to be there on the outcome for the officer waiting for a chief hearing, but usually it doesn't because they will each have their own separate set of facts

they are facing and separate allegations and discipline, so just a thought. >> i just want to clarify, the chief (indiscernible) done by daep chief-assistant chiefs as well? >> the chief of staff does not do chief hearings because they actually are part of the recommendation chain of command, and because our chief of staff has been off couple months so that takes basically a deputy chief out of the mix as well so that is part of our issue. people that- >> (indiscernible) >> somebody involved in a case they have to be recuseed so that is factor. that never changes, but it does impact us when we have to move people around because people are off or we have vacancies.

>> the chief of staff doesn't hear cases but the assistant does? >> yeah, the operation assistant chief does. in a perfect world they wouldn't but they do because we don't have a choice. >> when people are in acting positions we have a few acting deputy chiefs that are commanders, are they able to hear or is not that permitted? >> mou says deputy chiefs, so -we really need to address the issue and when this gets to the commission, i had to go through the process-it deals with discipline. i imagine that is a issue. >> is that something you think would help speed things along if in acting capacity they could hearings? >> i think it would-yeah, it

will give us more capacity, yes. >> it gives capacity as commanders acting as deputy chiefs and expand to captains acting as commanders? >> that could happen as well. those are considerations that we really have to think twice about because now the captains are not in the disciplinary process. those are things we have to consider but expanding the pool of personnel who hear the cases and doubling it will go a long way. >> i think that it would seem to me that expanding commanders make sense i think commanders are already in the process allowing them when they act as deputy chiefs that makes- >> i think the issue, when you are assigned a case, if you sit in the sheet seat when the case is assigned it

possibly could work but they assign those cases and then those cases unless they retire or some reason are not at work, it is their responsible to handle that case, so i guess you could do it that way but dont know that is the most effective way because i think that caused instability. >> okay. thank you. >> acting director. >> i wanted to follow up on that. the charter that is the power to discipline in the chief and the police commission and allows the chief to delegate the authority to discipline to commander level, so i don't know if acting captain acting as commander is violation of the charter. that is something we have to explore but pointing out it is commander issue. commanders and up per the charter

are allowed but there is the separate issue of any mou that sfpd may have with the poa with respect to discipline. i don't know about that. >> i think the mou states deputy chiefs. not the mou, the dgo. >> commissioner yanez. >> thank you president elias. i want to clarify for the record that my understanding about the mediation program, the dpa oversees is not restorative justice program. i have been doing a lot of work on this restorative justice elements, which include a harmed person developing a consequence and my understanding of what happens at dph does not include disciplinary actions or consequence imposed upon a officer as requested by the harmed person that makes the allegation is my understanding. >> well, i know that

restorative practices is a big umbrella of practices that are to make the person whole, so generally speaking that is what mediation wants to do is make the officer whole and make the complainant whole and give everyone satisfaction out of the prauz they have been heard and ish aoos addressed or assurances they will be addressed in the future. to the extent that maybe it is not a clinical psychological dsm explanation of restorative practices, i dont know, but i think generally speaking the mediation program is based on the idea that two people multiple people come into a room with a mediator and sit down and discuss things that they could not have discussed in the field. that were too tense to deal with in the field and the key is for

everyone to be heard respectfully to have an opportunity to say their piece and if it results in some type of resolution where there are promises made, great, if not and two people want to be heard that is what it is. we try to taylor each mediation to what the individuals involved want and need in order to come out whole. >> so there are elements of restorative justice presenceple polks of the restorative justice process but not a restorative justice program. i want to clarify for the record. thank you. >> one follow-up question. you indicated mou regarding written reprimands, what effect will that have on the

lingering cases. >> say again? >> there were elements ayou didn't think was a good idea is that because that delays the cases that are already delayed? >> there is a mou between the poa and sfpd that allows sfpd to hire retired deputy chiefs to hear discipline matters where the discipline intended is written reprimands. we believe the intention of creating this mou or been told at dpa the intention was to bring down the numbers of discipline cases that are currently pending, and based on our anecdotal experience, it does not seem to be doing that because in the last year i would say i think there were only 2 cases that have gone down that way, and in one of the situations it was

a little bit hairy because there are not rules regarding the application of due process and there were things that were not very well thought out, so the process didn't move forward. and so, based on what we see, we don't think that that is a effective way to alleviate backlog. we do have concerns the charter discipline power with the chief and the commission and the ability to delegate on behalf of the chief is very narrow, so we are concerned that by hiring retired deputy chiefs that is a improper delegation of authority. under the-we wouldn't have a problem with it, accept under the mou they are the final arbiters of discipline, so in all the other cases when deputy chiefs sit as

presiding hearing officers for discipline cases they write a recommendation that the chief can then either accept reject or incorporate in some way into his final discipline decision, but with respect to written rep rimand and retired deputy chiefs and this mou those deputy chiefs center the final decision making power and my understanding based on discussions i had and based on readings the mou the chief can not override their decision. so, we are a little concerned about that. so, the concern 2 fold. one, is it a violation of the vestiture of disciplineitary powers and is it working to reduce it back-log? >> my understanding i just received the mou. my understanding is on the

discipline metric written - >> i heard both sides from the legal department and i have read cases on both sides of the sides. because written reprimands have the potential to effect punishment, promotion, it could so i understand that argument, and that's something that we can all explore further, but on a immediate perspective-immediately to address the issues, those are the two biggest concerns dpa has. >> chief. >> that issue was actually brought before the commission based on litigation so that was initially a negotiation dhr was involved in, it became a department and poa negotiation

to finalize the process, but i don't know if any of the sitting commissioners were here then. i don't believe so because it might have been right before you got here when the issue came up president elias. but that definitely was a negotiated based on litigation on officers having a right to appeal even on reprimand with discipline so that was a long process that ended up being a agreement between the department and poa and think director preston is here. i think she was the one that was part of that process, meet and confer process. >> why don't we add this to friday agenda and then if there is a litigation memo can you please provide it to me? >> 2018, late 2017 when that was a issue. >> okay. let's do that and then we can figure when or if

we need to agendize. okay. sergeant. >> members of the public that like to comment for line item 4 please approach the podium. there is no public comment. line item 5. commission report discussion and possible action. commission reports limited to brief description of activities and announcements. discussion limited to determine whether to calendar for future meetings. commission president report, commissioner report and commission announcement identified for consideration at future commission meeting. >> i wanted to apologize as well for being late. the traffic was so-crazy today. took literally 43 minutes to get here which normally takes 20 normally. but i wanted to recognize international women day and dedicate the meeting to the cause. we celebrate today to bring attention to

women rights and the important issue that we as women face which include gender equality, violence against women and reproductive rights and we are here today thanks to the amazing women who paved the way for us to be here by bravely taking on these fights so we can be here today. so, i would like to dedicate-also like to dedicate and thank those women and dedicate the meeting to the strong powerful women who take up the fight every day. again, my apologies for being late and i want to say happy international womens day. commissioner walker. >> i totally concur. happy international womens day. i also want to take this opportunity to reinforce our appreciation at the sfpd committed to 30 by 30

to get more women on the force and women in leadership. i know we have a lot of women who are really leading the way in our department, including chief faredy there. thank you. i want to just update that i have gotten updates on it dgo, department and dpa are working together to resolve the edits and happy to report that, but i also met with in talking about the patrol special issue and the collaboration with sort of private security on how to include that, i met with some of the remaining patrol specials who are active and some who have history and city attorney to get a sense of the feeling of where our

legal position is with those beats. there were originally like 84 different beats where they had licenses and managed and they are down to 1, but i wanted to sort of get a sense so we can present to the commission what the status is of those things. next week i will be meeting with department representatives to discuss some of the issues that have been present there. i'm really excited about that. on that note, i have been working a lot talking with the community benefit districts who in general have been supportive of wanting to work more with what they do and our department in especially around merchant corridors in the commercial areas, and many of the cbd are actually doing what they can to bring more foot traffic to the businesses in the

district, and i went to the tenderloin cbd meeting where they were discussing the terms of their program where they are really going to be highlighting the businesses in the district and with a website and maps and guides and it looks to be a way of bringing more traffic so i wanted to make sure the chief had a couple of these. maybe diana who can do outreach on that, but it might be a way to really talk about coordinating in the what we are talking about with the alchemy groups, ambassador groups, police ambassadors, reserves, whatever the future is trying to encourage the partnership with the private sector. i know we are all discussing and so there is tense moments about the

police budget add-on happening and we all know that everyone in our community is talking to us about trying to make sure people are safe as well as a fair minded approach to law enforcement, so there is a lot of interest in working together and think it is really a opportunity these efforts it seems to be what the cbd focus on city wide so as we have opportunities with some of these non profit groups, the ambassador groups, the potential for-the issue with the ambassadors is really about the fact that they usually end at around 7 and many of these areas some of the issues of non presence of folks on the streets is more overnight or certainly later into the night, so might give us a opportunity to really try some programs and see what happens, so i just wanted to make everybody aware. it seems like a

really good idea, so-i also have been meeting, i know you were not here about the technology of working with the body worn cameras as well as other cameras, we are in the process of those meetings and hopefully have something just to talk about with the commission to see if that's interest to the department and dpa and the commission, so that's my story. thank you. again, happy international womens day to all of us. including these 2 women on the commission. >> thank you. commissioner yanez. >> thank you president elias, chief scott and acting director diana. i want to give a update on the social media dgo, which we received the request for extension which will go into 120 days so thank you for submitting that in a timely fashion. i know that

president elias received that and looking forward to just generating a good body of folks for that work group. the dgo revision of 701, the juvenile d gorks o is progressing, we are making a lot of-we made some i think important additions to the policy and we continue to expand the departments understanding of how juvenile development is very different in our approach to working with young people should be very different, so really looking forward to the april 12 joint commission meeting where we will have experts on best practices around this so that we have a good robust conversation about the direction that we should be taking. i did want to ask a question chief around the

shotwell-the castro street strategy. i want to thank ac lazar going out and spending the night and the changes had a impact on the section of cap street where a lot of prostitution was taking place, but i had asked ac lazar when he was here, what are we going to do containing the issue spreading to other areas of the neighborhood which is actually happening already? i am close to the 16th street corridor and basically all that activity is now somewhere between 16 and 18 street on the weekdays so i would love to know what the ongoing strategy will be and in addition to the enforcement elements, are we also working to try to detain folks driving. there is not necessarily the consumers but the pimps. is there strategy there that resulted in any outcomes positive outcomes to

contain the issue from spreading? that is one question i have. the second is, i just wanted to get your thoughts on-i forgot to ask last week, but towards the end of february there was a assault on 16th street of employee of believe a head start program early in the morning bart station. there was a press conference later in the week where leaders in the mission community requested more foot patrol and there was legislation to enact foot patrols but we haven't seen that in the mission so i want a sense of what is holding our interfering with our ability to put foot patrols at least on the bart station. we know there is a lot of traffic and where the majority of incidents are taking place so i like to get a sense of what the strategy will be there, so that is one question that i have and i guess i do want to

itemize or agendize for future conversation maybe in may or june, there was a rally around sanctuary city after dorsey proposal to the board and there was a big turn out and there is still the question of what our position is at sfpd with cooperation, collaboration or any enforcement of immigration or any perception of our cooperation in those elements and so i do want to have a conversation about policing immigrant communities in general, specifically the latinx community but know the issue impacts not solely the latin community, api communities and many other communities, so i want to agendize that for may but i would like to get your thoughts on the two questions around cap street, prostitution containment strategy and the request for foot

patrol on 16th street by the group that had a press conference a few weeks back. >> the cap street-let me answer the cap street question first. the biggest-one of the most important things we have to do is maintain consistency. it frequently happens in the tenderloin, happening there aapparently and happens in other places, particularly for those type of pervasive issue s, prostitution, drug dealing. we can clear a corner but there is a enterprise that is fueled by greed and profit that will not go away just by cleaning the corner so that is something in policing we always have to anticipate and the key to that just is making sure that when a problem moves we move with it. we have to hold ground on areas that is cleaned up and that is where the challenge

lies because there is only so many officers to go around, which gets to the second thing with the foot beats. we had foot beats on 16 street. we had struggles maintaining that presence. part of what we are trying to do to mitigate that and make the situation better is overtime the back-fillism . we need to fill the sector cars but when we have those filled also our goal is to as consistently as we can fill the foot beat locations that traditionally we had foot beats at 16th and mission, but as staffing goes down it is harder and harder to maintain consistency so we have an agreement with the poa in terms of the mandatory overtime that we have been imposing for a while now to have consistency with that process.

hopefully will alleviate a number of problems including fatigue. officers are working a lot now but that is what we have to do to just bridge the gaps so we hope this new agreement which we just agreement is on the table, we had to work out kinks, but this week actually it was the first week of implementation of this mandatory overtime agreement and we'll monitor and tweak it as we have to. in short, the key is consistency. we staff foot beats and then we don't. we staff and then we don'ts and sure the public sees it. it is very hard and painful because we make ground and lose it. 16th and mission is one of those areas, there is a lot of challenges as you know up and down that belong and it isn't all serious crime but there is a lot of quality of life issues we get complaints about, street vending and type of things. drinking in public. narcotic usage which we are on that as

well. we have to be consistent is the bottom line. what we are trying to do is make sure we hold ground when we have successes in terms of addressing these concerns but unless we are consistent it comes right back. it is just what we see in the tenderloin and other places so we will do our best given our challenges to be more consistent in deployment with it the new overtime agreement we have. >> commissioner benedicto. >> thank you president elias. couple quick update s for my report. as you know, i have been serving a liaison to dpa so have a quarterly meeting next week to get the status of adits. dpa has been providing updates on those processes as well. thankful for that. last week as chief

mentioned i accompanied lazar to community events on cap street in the evening after commission. it was great to see improvements there and hear the positive feedback from the community. also good that the captain from the station had the midnight shift go there sort of (indiscernible) got to meet members of the community they will be serving. i was able to attend that event as well. couple updates on dgo commissioner yanez said we are making significant prosprogress on dgo7.01. have the second to last meeting tomorrow. looking forward wrapping up the working group process and advancing it: begged me to not but chief i want to commend commander rachel muran who does a incredible job. i was

joking and (indiscernible) she is like please no, but i'm asking-president elias said to a lot of the processes we discover policy writers and hidden talents and commander muran has been such a tremendous part of that working group. we are also moving forward on 10.11. body worn cameras. (indiscernible) in part because 701 was so productive it ran into scheduled meetsings for 10.11 so looking forward to working on those as well. and that is my update. >> thank you commissioner benedicto. hopefully you will have better luck at securing the gems because when i ask the chief he always says no. >> just a quick update for me. met today with dpa and the department to discuss dgo810 first amendment surveill ance.

that working group is going to move forward. we set the start date for late march and discussing groups that might-groups and individuals that moithd be invited and chief will review the recommendation and proposed list and make a decision but look forward to joining those working groups and revising this important policy. >> commissioner yee. >> thank you very much there president elias. i just want to be on the record to recognize that today is international womens day. i was able to--honored to women commissioners we have president elias and deborah walker and thank the chief on his 30-30 initiative and 2017 where he

put forward. compared to the national to the city of san francisco, we have sworn officer at 12 percent and the city at 14 percent. the leadership position and national is only 3 percent, i say congratulations to our chief moving forward to 17 percent. we are headed in the right direction at 30-30. also want to thank your command staff and the members and also dpa members the women that serve us and keeping us safe and the public eyes and i want to also thank our commission staff on that too. thank you very much and also the city attorney. we should have a international womens day every day. >> i know! imagine how productive we would be. >> thank you very much. >> thank you

commissioner yee. we appreciate that. sergeant. >> members that like to comment regarding line item 5, commission reports, please approach the podium. there is no public comment. line item 6. discussion of march 2022mou regarding sfdd joining the fbi san francisco violent gang safe street task force at the request of the commission. discussion. >> who is presenting on this? welcome, how are you? >> doing well, thank you very much president elias and vice president carter oberstone, member of the commission, chief scott, acting director, members of the public and members of the department. i assistant chief david lazar and oversee operations for the

department. i will briefly go over high level elements in a quick and brief way of the memorandum of understanding between the san francisco police department and the federal bureau of investigation. the san francisco police department has a memorandum of understanding with the fbi specific to address violent gang enterprises as part of the violent gang safe streets task force. with a stated purpose since 1996. our latest mou agreed to march 24, 2022 signed by the chief. the mission of the violent gang safe streets task force is identifying target for prosecution groups. apprehension of dangerous fugitives. the task force enhances the

effectiveness of federal state local law enforcement resources through a well coordinated initiative. as of today, there are 5 full time task force members assigned to the community violence response team and 2 part time officers. their work location is actually sfpd. they dont sit at the fbi but work in the office with colleagues in the cvrt and supervisorsed by the department and fbi. there is a dual supervision in terms of the cases. couple quick highlights i like to share with the commission in terms of the mou. our continued assignment of personnel to the task force is based on performance. the department is briefed on it cases worked on by the chief or desingee. all law enforcement action is coordinated and

carried out. important point i want to point out, sfpd officers assigned to the task force will abide by policies procedures and applicable laws to the extent there is a conflict officers shall follow policies and procedures or withdraw from the portion of the operation that raise the concerns. all records are maintained by the fbi. officers assigned shall wear body worn camera consistent with sfpd policy and procedures. officers shall withdrawl that that portion of it operation. on acase by case basis determine aizs are made whether to prosecute federally or by state. the important point i want to point with regard to the cases is majority of cases are presentsed to the isf district attorney office, the member of

the-presented to the da office. however cases are reviewed by the ausa when the defendant-case by case basis the case if it doesn't fall within it category most times the ausa isn't interested in looking at it. then the fbi subject to funding pays overtime for officers and last is thats officers are to abide by current use of force policies including less lethal devices. the last thick i want to say is that of course i'm open to questions and to answer whatever you may have, but there is a lot of language about gangs in here but we dont in the san francisco police department use the

gang terminology anymore. we talk about especially with the work we did through our california partnership for safer communities, we use group. that is the language we use and under the chief leadership we got away from the gang task force. we call that group the gang task a very long time. now it is community violence response team because it is essential that we utilize the community to help us solve these issues and to work more collaboratively with them. you may know we changed the name of that unit. that concludes my presentation, but i am more then happy to answer questions you may have. >> thank you. i have a few questions. i'm going to start with some of had highlights you gave and go into my questions. you indicated that the officers that participate in this program adhere to the body worn camera policy. you

say 5 full time, 2 part time, right? >> yes. >> these are officers part of the cdrt team? >> yes. >> they are not patrol officers soze don't have a uniform like you, right? >> that's right, they are in plain clothes. >> if they in plain clothes how are they adhering to the body worn camera policy? >> couple things. one is that we put-i say we but the chief was specific about putting into the mou that the officers have to have body worn cameras but more importantly, the plain clothe officers now in our department are wearing body worn cameras and working on a order regarding plain clothe policy and have a greater conversation about 5.08, so that is really what we are requiring our plain clothe officers to do is wear-there are limited narrow

exceptions to that. >> i have seen the order and policy and dont think it is quite as limited as you say. let me turn back to this, these officeser in the program with the fbi are you saying they have body worn cameras even though they are plain clouths? >> that is it what i'm saying and the rule we put in a mou and agreed to. yes, that is what i'm saying. all members at the rank below captain issued body worn cameras so everyone has a camera, but they are required to wear it because that is what we agreed to do, and then now saying all plain clothes are wearing body worn cameras with limited exception and close to rolling out the plain clothe policy throughout operations. >> who monitors whether or not the officers participating in

the operation adhere to the body worn camera policy because there is a high number of body worn camera offenses and want to know what it is among the plain clothes because not all plain clothes wear body worn cameras. >> lieutenant bigs is in charge of the community violence response team. the members report directly to him. he is-it is his job to make sure they comply with policies and procedures as it relates to their work as san francisco plifesers and these are sergeants the wrun-you

say 4 are sergeants? >> 5 full time are sergeants, and then one part time is a sergeant and one part time is officer and can explain what a part time task force member is. >> you indicated there were the 5 and 2 were based on performance, what does that mean in terms of need? >> what i mean is that if the fbi or department believes that thoiz those members are not performing they are not able to be on the task force. it isn't a right to be on the task force, it is the option between the fbi and chief to decide whether someone maintains their status oen the task force. thankfully we to the best of my knowledge have not had issues with members on this task force. >> when you say they

are doing what they are supposed to be doing how is that measured? what are they supposed to be doing, making arrests? performance based based oen the number of arrests they conduct, the number of investigations? >> there is no metric or specific number that says if you do x amount of work you maintain good standing. essentially are you doing the work required of you and that is investigating gang related criminal enterprises related to weapon violations robberies, homicides attempted homicides. everything i spelled out in the face of the mou, are you doing the work and successful at the work and if you are, then you are remain on the task force. you are doing the work. >> so, my other question is, reading the mission statement how do you know the success-what are the metric for success for this program, because it doesn't

seem you are able to measure the metric, other then to say we made arrests but that doesn't seem like a measurement? >> one way to measure is successful apprehensions, successful prosecution. lack of complaints. there is probably a few categories we can look at and say okay, it looks like you are doing a good job on this task force because you are doing what you are supposed to do opposed to it looks like you are getting a lot of complaints or really not aprehanding or solving cases. many members have been on this task force for many years. we had one on the task force for several years and they all have specialty in terms of the work they do. >> they were on before 2022? >> some were, yes. >> all fairness, this mou was brought to light a couple weeks

ago. i wasn't aware the department signed a mou so not sure in terms of complaints people will be aware of that. >> what was the question there president? >> he indicated the number of complaints regarding this mou that would be one of the metric for measuring success and just saying i don't think the public was aware of this mou prior to a couple weeks ago in the newspaper article published which sparked us agendizing the item for discussion. >> yeah. so you have a list of all our mou and there are several pages. this task force just to reiterate what was said, many investigations we conduct with our federal partners are long-term

investigations. groups and to the question about what is measurement of success is carry through a successful case. when we work in the task force configurations these are not one off type operations. it is identifying groups involved in crimes or series of crimes and that is a measurement of success. the mou was just signed so the measurement of how that will work is determined with time but this isn't a new concept in terms of this task force. the first mou was 1996 with this type of configuration. i do want to address-not necessarily the article but the point you made about the commission just finding out about this. i do have the authority to sign mou as long as it doesn't--the jttf administrative code that was cited in a article really pertained to the joint

terrorism task force which we have not been a part of since january 2017. this mou i want to be very clear has nothing to do with the jttf or that type of work. (indiscernible) this is a work around is something that i want to put to bud bed now because it wasn't. we follow 3.01. the mou was not a mou with anything to do with jttf or anything like that and it also we definitely put pause in the mou about body worn camera s because we didn't want what happened in other cities and task force configurations there was a time the federal government did not allow body worn cameras in these task force operations. we would not participate under those conditions so wanted to spell that out and

make it clear that our officers if involveped and doing enforcement they will wear the body worn cameras. >> there was a article and you had said one reason the jttf or concern or problem with it was the fact officers were working closely with the fbi officers and create this relationship with them and have a working relationship and it is difficult to be in a position where you work with someone every single day and you have different objectives and different sort of rules you have to follow, because fbi officers adhere to their set of rules and the department san francisco adheres to theirs and sometimes those set of rules aren't-they differ. for example immigration and how we deal with immigration and so you indicated it puts officers in a difficult position to be in if they are in a

position where they are not allowed to do something but the federal counter part is and so that was one of your concerns you raised with jttf, so i imagine the same thing scenario would be applic nl in these situations given the fact the officers have to work closely. you have no jurisdiction over federal policy or law, so how is that addressed? >> it is addressed in the mou. our officers follow city and county and sfpd policy and if there is a conflict the mou states that our officers follow our policy. immigration, we don't-we have nothing to do with the federal government in terms of immigration policy or enforcing immigration policy. >> there is other difficulties that arise and the one that comes to mind is the 2017 where the sfpd worked with the federal government on operation safe schools and in

that instance there were millions of dollars spnt and thousands of hours by sfpd in the operation and what came to light in federal court was there was a practice of racial profiling and bias policing that resulted in the aclu filing a civil lawsuit and the federal prosecutor dropping several cases because of these allegations. so, what safeguards have you put in because i read the mou and don't see any, but what safeguards are there other then just saying pull out for sfpd so we don't have these kind of instances again? >> i don't-so, the 2017-fof all that case not happen in 2017. it was pre-2017. >> it came to light in 2017. >> and the bottom line that, if there are allegations of racial profiling, our policy clearly cover that. if there

are allegations of racial profiling by sfpd officers our policies clearly cover that. >> that was a prohibitive practice when it firfs happened as well chief. i don't think the chief was condoning racial profiling. >> we differ to the policy and if there is a allegation of racial profiling proven true the officer will be disciplined. no matter mou or not that is against our policy, so if your question is what safeguards are put in place, the safeguards are our officers when the is conflaket and differ to sfpd policy and the federal agency does not agree with that the officers pull out of the operation and will not participate in what they are doing to put in conflict with our policies, so that is the agreement that was put there for a purpose to address part

of the issue because we don't want that to be a situation where officers have to decide do i go with federal policy or our policy. it is stated. >> well, okay. i'll come back to that. my other concern is the what you raised ac lazar, the fact the fbi maintains the records. all records maintained by the fbi. i wonder again what provisions or safeguards for the different guidelines between state and federal court, especially when it comes to confidential informants or witnessesism in state court the plus report indicate the source of the information and attorneys can file motions to reveal or disclose information so that because there is a constitutional right to confront your accuser. in federal court that practice is different and most

often witnesses or confidential informants are not disclosed to the defense attorneys until the eve of trial which is way later and different practice. how if we are a city agency and we are in state court and the records-you're working oen a investigation and it is charged in state court, but you are not able to turn those records over to the defendant, it seems that is problematic to me because you are in state court and indicate the district attorney is charging the cases in state court but you as the non-owner of keeper of the records are not able to provide the information in contra diction to state law and procedure. >> i think one thing we need to clarify is, the quases that are presenteded to the da in san francisco that are charged are the cases we hang on to. in other words, we will clarify whether or not the fbi

has a copy of it cases. i dont believe so but we can double check. so, the cases the ausa takes is cases that we work in partnership with the fbi to resolve, but again majority of the cases these task force members are working on, the ausa they say it doesn't apply or don't want them or not interested and then these officers or sergeants or investigators take the case to the da, they try to get the case charged and arrest warrant, what have you, those are our case files. we have the case files in our filing system in our department in the offices they work in, so i say that to say i don't know exactly if the fbi takes everything we are working on even if it doesn't apply to them and hang on it to it. i venture to say no. >> in the mou it says their

documents which identify witnesses pay be released without fbi approval. how can you have the documents if the mou says the documents cannot be provided to sfpd unless they are approved? they are not really yours. >> i say for the cases that go get presented to ausa. >> that isn't in the mou. >> i understand so why we need clarity. now i don't have the exact answer. the chief may, but in other words, the majority of the state cases probably don't have copies of that. >> the mou reads the material and documents belong to the fbi and you only get them if they give permission. it is not-doesn't make sense you say this is the case file,

when when the mou says any material derived from the operation braung belong to them and they decide who releases them and whom they are released. >> i understand. we have to get clarity. >> i want to get clarity. is the question about informant files or sharing of investigative files? >> both because it has section for confidential sources and reports and records so two different sections. >> the way this works is if the case gets filed at the state level at the da office, the investigative materials needed to file the case will be with the case. if it gets filed at the state level. there has to be degree of cooperation for this to work. some case-assistant chief lar zar stated some are filed at the state level. it is a

collaborative effort. >> that isn't-i understand you are saying what it is in practice, ac lazar tells how it works but that isn't what the mou says. >> not clear on the question. i thought the question if the case goes to state court and there is informant involved then maybe i misinterpreted what you said, that informant information doesn't go with the case. >> that is part of the question but the broader questions is the records and documents produced as a result of the investigation or during the investigation do not belong to sfpd they belong to the federal government and the federal government decides when and where to release the documentss and that is my question which is, what about cases where in state court certain documents would be released where federal court wouldn't be. this is the property of the federal government and you don't have a say when i who you release

these to unless they allow you to. what you are saying in practice we get to use the documents, they are in the case file and present to the da to charge, but that's not what the mou says. >> yeah. i believe we are saying the same thing. >> no. & >> if the case is needed for prosecution-let me back up for a second. the mou and what we agreed to is the fbi owns the files. it is federal task force. the officers are officers are deputized. it is a federal investigation. they own those files. in order to have cases successfully prosecuted they share the files. they get to say bhaut what is shared. if there is a bigger picture and don't want to compromise something in the case bigger then the state prosecution they can say we don't agree to this. that is their call and that is watt we agreed to in the mou but i will say in the spirit of this, i

have seen these things a long time, it a good thing when we collaborate to address these type of significant issues that one or the other can't do on their own. so, yes that is true, the fbi owns these records, that is what we agreed to. if the case is filed by the state they will share the files. they do what is necessary to make sure the case is filed but that is their decision. they have to agree to that. >> right, but it isn't a mou is my point. you can say the spirit- >> they own the files. >> right. >> what i say is they get to decide when to turn it over. >> they do decide and that-let me answer your question clearly, they get to decide and we are okay with that because it is a federal case. they are-it is a federal case. >> okay. i have a few more but yield my time. vice

president carter oberstone. >> thank you president elias. thank you assistant chief lazar for the succinct presentation. always appreciated. wanted to pick up on the issue of information sharing. president aliss talked about information sharing. paragraph 5 is information sharing more broadly. also chief response to earlier question about how discipline would be handled if sfpd officer violated a sfpd policy in the course of a task force investigation. paragraph 25 seems to say the fbi gets to say whether any task force information is turned over to anyone outside the task force and so i am wondering how this works in the disciplinary context where either ia or dpa

needs information-there is a citizen complaint or ia starts investigation and say we need task force information to assess the complaint but the fbi is in a position to be able to unilaterally say no. do i have that right? >> well, the question you have is correct in terms of would the fbi turn over information to the dpa or ia in the event of allegation and i will say have to make request. not going to speculate what they do. the chief would have more insight on discipline on that. >> we would have to get approval for that information to turn over from the fbi to be turned over. we have to get approval. >> okay, so i guess earlier president elias laid out a situation where there is a violation of our bias

policy and your response if that happens we handle it, but it seems that this is a serious kind of impediment to handling if the fbi can say we support discipline but we don't want this information outside of our bubble. it imuniizing officers from having a investigation into whether there was violation of policy in the first place. is that right? >> i am not clear on your question. >> okay, say there is a sit zin complaints gaens a officer and task force, dpa investigates it as required to investigate, in the course of that investigation dpa decides it needs certain records, perhaps body worn camera footage, and it makes a request to the department for that information under paragraph 25 it seems the department is not able

to hand it over because it is task force information and if it is task force information the fbi has to green light it first, so then if the fbi says so noits own reason we can't investigate misconduct of officers that are on the task force. that is my question. >> so, the fbi would have a right to say no under this mou. the case would be told and whatever the reason they said no for, it has been resolved and that investigation goes forward. i think the issue and address as clearly as i can is this, in order for these task forces to work there has to be cooperation and yes, the fbi can say no because -whatever the case is in that

investigation that would cause that type of response, the quase can be told. however amount of time this criminal investigation is ongoing. however, they do have the right to say no per the agreement. they have the right to say no. >> i guess i want to be clear, maybe it is worth making that trade-off because we get so much benefit from the task force, but i guess it does jump out at me that chief you say it could be told but i think it could be impeded forever if the fbi decides for whatever reason it doesn't want to hand it over. that does seem extraordinary. >> if i may add commissioner, one thing i'm (indiscernible) they would not hand it over to the chief point about the cooperative spirit working in partnership. if they knew one

of members alleged they engaged in misconduct or violation of policy, we would make that request. i can't stand here today and say they absolutely give us the record, but i would be surprised if they didn't and they don't want problems on their task force. >> are we aware-point well taken about hypotheticals so are we aware of situations where iad or dpa asked for task force information and they have not received it? >> perhaps-may i answer the question? >> not during mine tenure. i'm aware of a case prior to that where that was the case and the case was actually told, but not during my tenure. as far as i know we have not had the problem in the 6 years i have been here. >> shall i address

you? >> sure. >> so, we have had two cases and dpa shares your concern specifically with paragraph number 25, 26, but also with paragraph number 62. all of which came into play in two cases we have with where officers from srt were involved. we see issues jurisdictional issues because in those particular cases those officers were conducting law enforcement activities outside of san francisco. we saw issues allegations of-we received allegations of misconduct and we were not ultimately able to complete our investigation and come to a conclusion regarding whether the officers committed misconduct or not because it took 8 months of fighting to get some records, some

records we did not get and were advised the basis for not getting the records is because of fbi involvement and other reasons and third and most importantly, there were-62 is a interesting paragraph because there is a collaborative called the northern california regional intelgence center that has a ton of military grade surveillance type equipment that is available to for use by the fbi. members of scrt are also able to loan that different type of equipment out and use it in their investigation. dpa has grave concerns because there is no-it is unclear-i don't know what is

in that bank so to speak. are there weapons there? are there surveillance things there that we are not entitled to use? >> are these allegations that you are making or is this speculation because you are going down oo road. firfs of all, if there is an allegation or something you are investigating we are using some equipment that we shouldn't be using, the fact i'm hearing this in open police commission session is troubling. >> i don't know what is in there, that is what i'm saying, i done know how and don't know how we measure because they asked whether or not there are disciplinary cases so that lfsh one thing we founds out thin course of discipline case that there is this place where sfpd officers can loan out equipment. that was my concern and we were not able to get information about the equipment. the other thing we were not able to get

was concern questions answered by the officers during the interview because they invoked the fbi, mou. >> to be clear, this is just allegation that our officers were using some equipment that- >> correct. >> so that is investigated? >> that was investigated but because of the mou we were not able to come to conclusion whether it was or not proper conduct. we closed the case as insufficient evidence because with the information we had and the possibility of other information out there that the officers were not willing to share by invoking the mou, we could not come to conclusion one way or the other. >> i think that to me that is a larger issue in terms-just to be clear, the insufficient evidence cases do not get presented to me. >> correct. >> in that situation

i'll ask since you brought up publicly is that is raised to executive level because if there is allegation that is happening we need to get to the bottom of it in my opinion, and it doesn't change the mou but that needs to be investigated and this is the type of thing where i think it is incumbent upon us and federal partners to make sure that these type of things the information is provided to let us resolve these type of issues when they come up. first i'm hearing of it. you call police legal and i hear that, but- >> we can't elevate every case to your level but i appreciate that and we certainly will be in touch about this specific case. but that doesn't change the issue like i said that dpa has with respect to paragraph 25, 26 and 62. and that is a practical real world

situation because up to this point we have been talking about speculation of what would happen. we know what would happen is that is that this particular mou is a impediment to dpa obtaining information in discipline cases in a timely expeditious fashion and obtaining all the evidence. we have concerns. >> if i may add to chief point , if you gave a opportunity to give information for you please give us the opportunity. it may not get to the chief level but can come to anybody at the command staff level to make the calls and say we are trying to get this, the mou says this but this is important and we will do that. >> like i said, there were other issues involved in the case, but the point is that the fbi, mou appeared to

be impediment. >> okay, that is helpful to know and i think this might be a subject for broader conversation since there was a couple instances where paragraph 25 was at play. i wanted to ask about both assistant chief larzar and chief scott if there is a conflict with federal and local policy officers will follow the policy of their respective agencies. it seems to me in practice this is harder to do. i think it-sfpd officer is a in a tight situation they need to "withdraw" from that portion of the operation. i wonder how this works in practice because if everyone is following their respective agency policy house does it work in all the situations that require coordination of groups of individuals? it

wasn't that long ago we had the barricaded suspect dg or where it is like the officer sergeant and lieutenant have 6 things they have to do in order when they arrive to the scene. i recall discussions about reviewing when there was use of force. i think we have-when you shoot an eriw there has to be a cover officer with fire arm to cover the officer shooting the non lethal weapon. just like there is a lot of examples of when groups of people have to conform to the same policy to carry something out and it is not practicable to have everything everyone doing their policy. this is a hypothetical but what is your response to that? >> my feeling on

this-what i know to be true is we have been partners in the task force for such a long time going back to 1996 we had members doing the work that have done this several years. the communication with the fbi how we do things-the fbi knows our policies well because we communicated about use of force and de-escalation and low we do things and body worn camera and immigration and all the things that are important to us and our task force members know how important it is that they follow policies they disengage from the plan, et cetera. i will say that the fbi doesn't put us in a lot of situations where there is conflict because they know what is at stake and know the rules and all those other things. i had conversations with the leadership at the cbrt and they are serious about making sure that their members are

following these policies. again, especially arounds immigration. very clear about that. i know we are talking hypothetical. >> the mou has three paragraphs on use of force 49-52 i think. so, it does contemplate that task force members will be involved in those type of situations and our use of policy imagine is very different then the fbi use of force policy. it doesn't seem inconceivable that you have a officer in a situation where they can't possibly follow both federal and local policy and also not realistic to say you can just bail out in the middle of a dangerous situation. or withdraw as the mou says. >> i understand your question and so i'll say this in

addition to what has been said. the use of force is separate issue and will address last. most of the operations there is pre-planning. not most of them. when task force officers go out on a investigation there is usually planning-there is planning. if they do enforcement or arrest. this is where these briefings happen as to what the rules of engagement are. our officers are required to follow the policy. use of force to me is not issue, but what could be a issue is dynamic things that can occur during a operation. for instance, real life examples in the case where immigration and this is what chief lazar mentioned, immigration popped into the issue. we pulled out of the operation. if it is criminal investigation

we do joint operational child pornography and those type of things, we are there to investigate the criminal operation. if it goes to a situation where the non criminal part of home land security is involved we are out. and we have done that. there is the ability to pull out. in a dynamic situation where a warrant is served first thing is the officers have to follow policy so the body worn cameras are on. if the fbi or who ever we are working with cannot agree to tat we will not take part in that. say task force officers go out for a interview and something happens spontaneously, our officers are required to follow inpolicy. there shouldn't be a question what the fbi needs to do. the question is if both because this happened in law enforcement where there's multiple agencies involved in a

use of force officer involved shooting which is a issue that brought to the body worn camera discussion. this happened in another state but the bottom line is, our officers will follow our policy in those situations and if the federal partner can't agree they will not participate. before we serve a warrant if they say we can't allow body worn cameras then we will not be a part of the warrant service so that is the way it works. somebody goes to lunch and task force and bank robbery goes down our officers have to follow our policy. the fbi follow their policy. we are required to follow our policies. >> okay, thanks chief.

you would have to present it to the commission? >> my view in that there requirements of anything related to the joint terrorism task force which was the administrative code- >> setting aside the administrate ive because that says if jttf you have to present it but under 3.01 provision about the commission approving mou that effect commission policies. if this was signed august 2022 do you think you would have had to present the commission? >> (indiscernible) >> after the new 3.01 was operational? >> no, because i don't believe it modifies the commission policies. anything

task force that doesn't modify a-the policy says those don't have to be presented to the commission so don't beeve it would. >> okay. i think that is maybe a larger conversation because wonder if there is a close call whether something effect commission policy who decides whether it needs to be presented to the commission. my very last question is, do you think this would effect sfpd officer ability to notify a supervisor under sfpd policy in a given situation? there are so many policies that requires officers to notify a supervisor under myriad of circumstances but if it is a task force operation and there is such control on task force information, does this mou in your view effect supervisor

notification requirements? >> in my view, no. >> i second that, no. just because asia you know in the mou it says the task force-the chief of police or designee informed of the quases and work. those sergeant are in constant communication with the lieutenant knhaut what they are doing. they have those conversations with the lieu teenant and work in the sfpd and always with their boss. >> thank you. those are my questions. thank you. >> thank you president elias. thank you chief and thank you chief lazar. i was very interested to hear from acting director roseen steen but the insufficient evidence cases that maybe didn't rise to the attention of the chief and assistant chief and it sounded there is a

(indiscernible) encourage the parties to talk about those specific cases and about a process to escalate some things to the command staff level and the commission, because that was something very interesting we all learned all at once so i think we want to see what the implications as we consider continued involvement. i have a couple issues i want to talk about. i want to talk about-i know paragraph 18, which says that sfpd officers assigned abide by policy procedures and laws. there are acouple of provisions later in the mou that may or may not be in conflict and want to get the understanding. not withstanding parograph 18, paragraph 47 says, the use of other investigative methods and reporting procedures consistent with policy

and procedure of the fbi. it is your understanding that even though that says that paragraph 18 supersede paragraph 47 where the policies conflict? >> yes. >> turning to 48 under cover operations. cover operations conducted and reviewed in accordance with fbi guideline and u.s. attorney guidelines. it is department understanding paragraph 18 supersedes paragraph 48 where there is conflict? >> i'll answer that, any conflict with sfpd policy, our members will abide by our policies. any conflict. >> okay. that would include paragraph 48? >> yes. >> the reason i want to go through these, i appreciate the position is in any conflict, but these are somewhat

ambuguety so think it is good for members of the public to hear these provisions how you see the ambiguities playing out. the next is paragraph 53, which discusses personnel designated and sworn as federally special deputy united states marshal with the fbi securing the authorization. again, anything under the guidelines govern (indiscernible) department position that when in conflict paragraph 18 superveeds this? >> yes. >> the last one is paragraph 54 deputized personnel subject to rules and regulations pertaining to such depitation administrative personnel policy imposed by the agencies will not be voited by depitation with respective personnel so department's position that where there is

conflict paragraph 18 would govern paragraph 54? >> yes, that is my interpretation and it covers that because it says that. >> is this up for renewal at any point? is there a end date negotiated up for renewal? >> let me see-paragraph 80-82. >> open ended unless there is a noting of termination? >> correct. >>-we have the 1996 version. do you know there was a version negotiated between them and second most recent one? okay. >> for this i think the only one before that was 1996. >> okay. given how

many policies from the 90 it isn't most surprising. a concern i have and why i called the 4 paragraphs and glad you agree you believe paragraph 18 govern in those circumstances. i wonder what happens if i ask the fbi the same question and if the answer is different that could present a problem. i think if and when there is a opportunity to renegotiate this if it is the case the departments position is paragraph 18 supersede this that is something in writing and in the mou so you don't risk getting different answer s from different agencies. >> i will speak-i can speak to the conversation about policy conflict and that was a must for us to be involved in this is that our members follow our policies and what caused this thing to be

renegotiated was body worn camera issue. that is issue in places and jurisdictions where there is conflict and body worn cameras were not used in critical situations and we could not do that so that is what caused this to be renegotiated for this time and there is some-the answer i got was the same that i say in the hearing is the fbi agreed to this so i don't believe their answer would be different because that was part of the discussion in the negotiation. >> absolutely. i think my hope would be the same but as wesaw in 2017, administrations change, fbi administrations change and might have different ausa change and i think one thing we heard a couple times tonight is encouraging stories about the cooperation which is good, but i think all of the attorney members of the commission agreed if you want

something in the contract you should-it is better it is in the contract through practice and procedure so think that is why i want to go paragraph by paragraph and why encourage whether who owns the data or information sharing about discipline cases, even if we have good practices we want to see them in the contract. continuing on the theme of conflicts, and picking up of what vice president carter oberstone said, it seems there are a couple categories of conflicts that could arise. there are ones that arise as you plan operation. there are ones that could arise in the moment in which you expect a officer to use their judgment. if directed-i assume if a officer were directed by a fbi agent deploy the restraint where we have gotten rid of that a officer would decline to do that in the moment under the policy. that is

incidental conflicts. there are also conflicts that you can predict in a more systematized. if the fbi does drone surveillance-i think there is difference between conflicts that arise in the moment and ones more foreseeable and systemic. has the department undertaken any analysis oen the larger conflicts so the department or officers can be aware of what pitfalls that might create friction between it agencies sph >> yes, and really the issue gets back to your fundament question, whether there is a policy conflict. you raise a good question about drones. the realty is, we requested drones in search and rescue operations we are

involved with outside agencies because we don't have them and we only done it on limited cases, but we are looking for somebody who we believe life is in peril and requested drones so if the fbi were in the situation and they use drones i think the real issue is there a policy conflict and in that case there is not because we don't have drones and we don't wouldn't request routinely that type of thing. if it is a policy conflict our members are told when they get into these task force-deputized they have to follow our also. if it a question about something, they are good about calling and asking questions. supervisors-as i said and this isn't anecdotal we are faced with situation where the conflict of policy we pulled

out. i'm confident-nothing is pool proof to the commissioner's points earlier but i think the struck ture is there for us to handle whatever situation that might disciplinary under this mou. not withstanding what we heard today from mrs. roseen steen which we'll follow up on. >> i think i note i thenk it is proactive to identify categorical errors that might lead to conflict to prepare because of the nature of the job if there was a way to identify for example our policy on first amendment activities is much stricter imagine then the fbi so when officers detail to the unit they know what to look out for because it can be so circumstantial and incidental when these conflicts arise. look where conflicts might occur.

>> understood. >> you said thrrp 5 full time and 2 part time officers. are the officers are deputized pursuant to paragraph 53? >> the 5 full time are deputized and then they have access to the fbi and building and office and the spaces if they need to go there and have meetings and things like that. the part time contributed to the work but when they go to the federal building they have to be escalated and don't have it full clearance others do and they are part time contributors to the work going on. they have other work they do so that is why we call part time. >> the part timers are not deputized pursuant to paragraph 53, just assisting? >> i have to double check. i don't know exactly. the full time are, the part time not exactly sure. they do work with the task force.

one is a officer and he does a lot of supportive work behind the scenes so we'll get back right away on that answer. maybe the chief knows. >> if they are formally a part of the task force they are deputized. there are some in some situations if funding allows reimbursement things that officers the city can get reimbursed for overtime funding. they have to be deputized in the task force in order for that to be triggered. >> on the opposite side of the dpa question we had, are the deputized officers also subject to discipline under fbi procedures if they do something maybe violating fbi procedure but didn't violate sfpd procedure? >> no. fbi has no jurisdiction what they can do is terminate the agreement that the officer is part of the task force but the administrative

part is incumbent upon the department. criminal violation that is different story. they can investigate criminally. >> i would add i'm confident if we violate something on the fbi side we would hear about it. they would not be happy with our member and then we have to make a decision about depending what it is what we do. >> okay. those were my questions about conflict. i like to turn now to the question of-this was brought before (indiscernible) i was looking at the text of 3.o1 and chief dont think it needs to revise a dgo or department notice to be under 3.01, impacted which i think is broader. 3.01 says

mou says impacts a notice or governed by statute submitted to the commission. i think that i also say even if it were not required under 3.o1 under full approval, i think it is appreciated by the commission if we are presented for just discussion and informational purposes. i don't think any of us like to learn about-i think we all learned about this in the press and think that is not ideal and i would hope that there were a more free flowing communication so we can be updated that is something is upcoming because even if it were not for approval, if thisprinted comingp this year and the commission could discuss if, some of the questions about paragraph 18 if we are not voting could be something you can take

back before the mou is finalized under your prerogative as department head, or maybe adding language about disciplinary cases. i think there is always value getting additional perspective so hope that would be something the department would consider. >> understood. i would say this because i know this maybe commissioner elias was on the commission when 2 first arose and we have hundreds-don't know the exact number but have hundreds of mou, and i guess in the sense you said, all of our mou officers have to follow the policies. there are mou where we want to emphasize things like body worn cameras that was a issue for partnerships with the federal government not to circumvent or amend the dgo but make sure we do what is right for the city, so if

that impact means then i can see that, but the issue that i would ask for the commission, we have hundreds of mou and there is a probably a week that goes by there isn't a contract that need signature. that gets into the day to day operation of the police department when 3.01 comes back for revision if federal mou or what the commission-we have nothing to hide is what i'm trying to say. we want to do what we need to do to be able to do our job effectively in the city and that requires partnership not just the fbi and ort agencies as well. nothing to hide, nothing to not put in front of the public eye, but i would say this, there is hundreds of mou and it if the commission wants to see every one of them, i think that would be problematic.

>> i don't think-certain the commission does not want to see hundreds of mou and does not want to interfere in the daily operation of the department. i think this can be part of a broader discussion how to strike the balance because i think the commission doesn't want to see hundreds of mou but nor repeatedly to have mou of interest to it public make their way after it is reported on after the fact and so maybe that process can be identifying certain mou of significant interest and when those are updated those could be maybe as part of chief report advance and commissioners can comment. here is the list of the mou in the next 6 months which do the commission want to see? there is a middle ground that can be worked out because i do believe the department doesn't have anything to hide and think is matter of striking the balance providing updates that are of concern to the public but also allowing you to run

the operation through the department. also say i know that this because this came up quickly, i have been contacted by several organizations and plan to take meetings with community stakeholders. i will keep the department apprised but think there is a lot of interest in this mou and process. i bet if we still had telephonicpublic comment we would have hundreds of callers on the line so i ask president elias maybe in 4 month time some time early fall we agendize this to learn updates on the process about with dpa or just in general to keep an eye on this because i think it is a matter of public interest. >> thank you. commissioner yanez. >> thank you president elias and thank you fellow commissioners for covering all most all the questions

that i had. i would just for the sake of informing the public, reference number 18 again and if you can just explain in real time an officer that notice they are put in a position to violate one of our policies, what do they do in the moment? what is the protocol? do they call a supervideser or convey to the supervisor of the federal team, what does that look like real time ? >> all the above. tell the partners the use of policy says abc and tell the fbi supervisor. again this could probably happen in the briefing but maybe happens real time in the field. the fbi is taking making entry, there is a

conflict, the lieutenant maybe gets on the phone with the fbi supervisor and work things out. i imagine it doesn't happen often but to your point it could happen andthalities that's what we would do. again, not to belabor this, but our members don't want to get in trouble for doing something they are not supposed to do because they are sfpd officers first. >> great. thank you. chief this is a improved version of this mou compared to the one in the 90. this is way more comprehensive so gives a lot more opportunity to ask questions, right? number 72, the non disclosure agreements. does everyone on this team sign these including supervisors? >> yes, as it relates to confidentiality of the cases they are working on the type of cases they are working

on so it task force member can't just come back to the department and talk to colleagues not on the task force and say guess what this is what we are working on and doing. we have to maintain that and they get clearance and everything. it is really need to know and very limited amount of people that get to know what they are doing. >> considering that there is the use of informants is very clearly delineated and the constraints around devulging information around the informants is clearly spelled out. a hypothetical would be, if a officer is on a team with a informant involved but that officer steps out of the situation, but a potential community member experiences an outcome as a result of that operation, is there a concern about the perception

of the department officers ingageing in some of things we know-i will not go back-during black lives matter fbi had very sketchy practices. are we at all concerned about that and when that perception appears what do we do to resolve that? >> we go back to what we are originally saying. i don't necessarily understand your question. >> we have--there are always hypotheticals presented here in order for us to understand how to deal with the situation. >> i understand. >> we have one of the 5 officers in a operation, there is informant doing something we would never ever allow our officers to engage in, that officer opts out but the operation is in place, community members they have seen the officer on that team or as a part of this

operation. there is fall out to that, right? fall out is dpa complaint maybe we don't get to investigate. how do we manage that? >> i think it provides with a opportunity to explain to the public that we opted out because of rule 18 we opted out and we recognize right away it doesn't fall in line with our values or rules and as a result we got out of it and just have to explain that. i say even applaud the officer for making a good decision and knowing they are following the rules and tapping out of whatever they are doingism we have to explain and be transparent and explain that. >> i agree i would applaud the officer but that is a lot of pressure to put on that officer and the discretion there is insurmountment sometimes. we talked about pressure situationsism i think it is

something to further explore. number 77 says that if there is a civil claim --defendant in the civil action as a result of or in connection with performance of his or her official duties and assignments pursuant to this mou certified as a federal employee. while this procedure is taking place are we losing a officer? >> no. the task force-i think stated earlier, they actually work in our facility. they are part of a task force so it is investigate driven. it is mission driven, whatever the investigation or investigations are. we don't-this is not the type of agreement where the officer is off outside the city working on something that has nothing to do with the

city. there could be investigations that lead us outside the city, but this configuration or task force we are not losing a officer. >> great. that's-- >> if i can geback to the last question. didn't get my hand up quick enough. in that situation you just described where some activity unimaginable is happening we have the cause and paragraph 81 that anybody-any agency can withdraw from the task force. that is our job in terms of-if that comes to our attention we have the ability to with draw fraup from the task force if those type things are happening. there is too much at stake for us to allow any type of activity of that nature to put this department

in jeopardy, so that clause is there for a reason because it is something like that happens we could pull out all together. >> great. good to know. i do also want to echo commissioner benedicto and the rest of our commissioners who had spoken on the issue. i think it definitely needs to be looked at further. i know 83 gives us a opportunity maybe introduce revisions at some point, so i hope that just having this conversation has brought to light some potential challenges of going into these agreements without having as you know robust conversation as we are now, and but because i strongly believe anything that inhibits our ability to discipline or to have a transparent process when the community brings up issues is definitely something we need kwonversation in this space around, so when the

happens in june or when ever it does i think it definite needs to be priority. especially considering the-some of the questions that i have fielded after that sanctuary city rally that happened in front of city hall as a result of the proposal that unfortunately had a image of you connected to it so the fact there are immigrant communities who are now having a question whether they will reach out because of these perceptions i think it behooves us to address this and get to resolve it as soon as possible. thank you. >> can i address that because i want to make very very clear and know you didn't mean the intent to say i was connected to that because i wasn't. but just for the public, it was a

stock photo that was placed with this article with my picture on it, me nor any member of the department had anything to dado with that so want to be very clear on that. >> yes, and i didn't mean-- [multiple speakers] because of someone using your picture. you clarified that in february. thank you. >> commissioner walker. >> thank you very much. i just have a couple of questions. just about the functioning. i would assume that these investigations because some of the activity is regional. it seems to me what i have been reading about the gangs engage in trafficking drugs and trafficking stolen bikes that it isn't just in san

francisco, so do we-does this task force also engage with other agencies like across the bay and different other places where the activity goes? >> the answer is yes. we work with the federal partner at the fbi and connected with other agencies throughout the bay area and often times the unit travels all over the bay area on daily basis working on cases with direct nexus to san francisco. >> i think that--i know i think i mentioned this to the chief where i was watching as cars were unloading bikes into vans and there was a whole operation going on roget next to the federal building and i just was-the question i ask- (indiscernible) are we working with

the fbi? because it really is-the depth of this goes regionally, so i really appreciate the depths of it questions from other commissioners. i think that none of us are out there doing your job, so it is helpful to get the explanation. i think that i also just want to reiterate to commissioners speaking as a commission when you speak as a individual is really-it is problematic for me because i think we all are individual and have different positions on stuff, so i really appreciate the coordination between all the law enforcement. i think these issues are huge. these are at the crux of what is happening on our streets, so thank you for the deep explungz explanation of these

and answering our questions. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> commissioner byrne. >> thank you presidents elias. two points. when i looked at the mou and paragraph 18ime wrr glad commissioner benedicto asked the questions, but paragraph 18 to me at least is the conflict paragraph and the second sentence says if there is a conflict between the two policies the officer shall withdraw. when i learned contract law the specific govern the general. that seem said to deal with the specific of the conflict and so i'm glad he asked the questions to clarify it, but from my reading of it, as a lawyer and guess you will get another opinion from the other two lawyers up here, but it was resolved with me. but my other question is

as faum follows, the issue with the mou is there a mou with ice with city san francisco? >> no. with immigration enforcement, no. >> with u.s. custom and boarder protection is there a mou with them ? >> i don't believe. let me go back to ice. we dont have any dealings with ero. that is administrative unit- >> rights. enforcement and removal operations. they are the people that i do this. these are people that actually physically put them on the plane or on it bus to the boarder. >> yes. and so absolutely sure there is no mou with them. with the criminal part, hsi, i don't believe there is mou but have to verify that. i don't remember everything on there list but we worked criminal investigations with hsi on particular cases like the child pornography cases i was referring to so there have been

those type of collaborations with hsi on criminal investigations. we don't have to do with the other part of that. >> that obviously speaking for myself would intist to see how far that cooperation goes because of san francisco sanctuary provision. with the regards to the airport, u.s. custom and boarder protection, is there a mou with them? >> i don't believe so, i will check the list. >> if you can come back and let us know. again, as the other commissioners said, san francisco is a immigrant community, and a lot of people would be worried about that. my last 2, anything with alcohol tobacco and fire arms. >> we have a partnership with alcohol and tobacco fire arms and that's through our crime gun investigation

center, which is a collaborative to reduce gun violence. there was-i believe there is a mou with them. i know there is a grant we got grant funding to start this investigation center but where will check to verify but believe there is mou with atf. >> finally the drug enforcement administration. >> i don't know if there is current. i have to check but don't know if there is current but we have had partnerships with dea on some of the narcotic investigations. >> obviously theuble at least for us to see the mou i think again speaking for myself but think would interest-not making much of a wager it interest the rest of the commission as well. thank you chief. >> thank you very much presidents elias. i have one

question with the partnership with the fbi and san francisco police over these 25 years 27 years. is there substantial cases that result from this joint operation you guys have? >> there are many. i can't recall all but there are many cases that have resulted. not just with fbi, with other agencies as well. >> thank you very much chief. >> those thatd like to comment on line item 6, please approach the podium. all is no public comment. line item 7 discussion of the draft memorandum of understanding between san francisco police department and san francisco district attorney office regarding the investigation of serious use of force and in-custody death for

meet and donefer purpose for the effected bargaining units required by law. judge walker assisted with draft mou the da office and sfpd agreed upon. and discussion of mou and sfpd and dpa regarding the investigation of officer involved shootings. >> that would be me. let me grab my notes. >> i'll try to be succinct. part is update and request. a update, the mou with the district attorney office we had a agreement and judge walker and his assistant did review it. after that review by the judge walker there was a issue that was raised by the district attorney office that we agreed

to the couplesentances in one paragraph. where we are is we want to judge to see that. based on the feedback received i believe all of it is addressed and some comments made by several commissioners i believe was addressed, however because of the non disclosure agreement that the district attorney and myself and the judge have on this issue, we have not been able to provide that draft to dpa so here is where my ask. we were directed by the commission to present both mou together. what i'm asking if we can forward the mou for posting publicly the one with the da office so dpa can get a look because i don't

think it-we gave counter proposal tuesday dpa and it is not fair to them to not really understand the context of what is driving the proposal. my ask is that that mou with the da office once the judge sees this which i hope is in the coming week, be given to the commission so dpa can get it and resolve because we are a part with our discussions with dpa on couple issues but i do think it would be very productive for them to have the mou in hand to fall tow the commission direction if the commission wants the direction to present at the same time. it is very hard for them for us to do that mou without them having the changes in the agreement with the da office. that is my ask. that is where we are. there have been meetings and talked to

director hendserson about this so that my ask, if we have the mou given to the commission posted publicly, dpa gets it and then we can-the commission can get both at the same time as was requested. >> extension to march 31 so you will be signing another one? >> unless we do quick work. we are going to do as quickly as possible. what i have done to keep the sense of urgency and don't want to automatically sign a extension. as long as we sign before the mou expires, but that is why we do one month at a time. >> is your representation then that once dpa sees a copy of the mou that the revised mou with the da office that that will resolve issues you are

having with dpa? >> i can't speak for dpa what they agree to but i can say i think they will have insight as why changes are in there that we are proposing. and we can talk through with the document in their hands some of what was said in the commission and why the agreements are and now like they are, so we can talk through that and see if we x come to agreement. i can't guarantee we will but will tryure best but dont think it is fair for them or us to do this without them having the mou in their hand. >> maybe the question was directed for dpa then. >> i'm not sure that answering why is going to bring dpa and sfpd closer together. let me explain why. so, in november we saw it draft mou between the da office and sfpd the public saw. this also

attached here. and there is nothing in that mou that should affect our sharing of information and access to information between sfpd and dpa because of the charter. so, i am not sure that we want to or need to see the newest version or that it will be dramatically different then the one we have already seen. as background, when we got the november draft and i went about the task of creating our draft mou presented to sfpd, i tried to mirror the language as much as possible of the sfpd, da, mou and then i think a week maybe two weeks

ago we received a different draft of mou created by sfpd and at this point it is literally comparing apples to oranges. what it doesn't do is what is most important to dpa and dont think the da mou will have relevance is dpa is-would want to memorialize the agreements we have so far with the department with access to information that we currently get on officer involved shootings. access to information is in three basic categories. so, if we cannot memorialize at least what we aurd get when we get to the scene and investigate these cases, there really isn't any

quid pro quo to discuss any other possibilities. let me give you a example. right now we currently have access to the scene provided by sfpd in a officer involved shooting so once the scene is secure we are allowed to walk through. extremely important for purposes of investigation to see and feel and smell and hear and look at the lighting before the scene is broken down. for example, there was a shooting that occurred on folsom street and i responded and i was allowed to walk through the scene, and there would have been no way for me to know how narrow the hallway was if i hadn't gone to the scene because the bwc did not provide that scope and level of information. it was

invalvable to have been there. under the new mou, and if this changes that would be great, but under the new proposed language that sfpd and da have contemplated and draft presented to the public, it says sfpd insure that sfda personnel have access to the scene and the proposal we got from sfpd it says with sfda consent sfpd provide dpa personnel with access to the scene. that is a step back for us because right now sfpd is in charge of the scene and sfpd provides us access. additionally, it is disingenuous to say sfda consent because they are not conducting the initial investigation from a practical perspective the only thing the da office does in ois situation is interview

witnesses. in terms of the physical evidence that is preserved and collected at the scene, that is done exclusively by sfpd and i dont see that changing because as chief scott explained in the past, the da office doesn't have capacity to control the scene. so to give up control of the scene and control of access to from sfpd to dpa where the da would have it final say who gets to walk through, it seems a little bit-a huge step backwards for us. especially in light of it fact there is right now only one agency that is mandated by the charter to investigate officer involved shootings and that's us. the other issue is that the language between the da and sfpd says sfpd

on scene will brief the da on all relevant information known at the time including name location of involved witnesses, officers name address location of civilian witnesses, all statements made by the officers, physical evidence discovered, medical condition of all injured parties. clearly we need that information at the scene in order to make a fair and partial assessment of the officer involved shooting so we asked for that information in the draft we provided as well. what we got in the draft provided by sfpd is, da as the lead agency has ultimate authority regarding access to criminal interviews of witnesses officer et cetera. the mou provided to us is silent about whether or not we would get the same type of briefing. i would like to point out that we didn't get to this in a vacuum.

this was-these were things that sfpd insured we were provided with based on the cop dog report and the collaborative reform initiative. recommendation 10.1. specifically said, this is how old the recommendation is, sfpd establish formal protocol to insure homicide detail, provide occ now dpa and da investigator a timely briefing about facts of the case and formal walk-through to the incident scene. if we can't memorialize something as basic as that in our dpa mou with sfpd or that is controlled by the da office, there really is no incentive to enter into mou with sfpd and give up what we already get as a matter of course at the scene. the

last-there are two other things that we are concerned with. we have fought and thanks to the chief had the ability to watch through closed circuit television capabilities at headquarters interviews of officers, interviews of witnesses that are done very- (indiscernible) these witnesses are brought back to headquarters and we are in one room with iad and the homicide-now iib and criminal investigators from isd are in another room and we can watch the interviews that goes on. for those of you that have done any type of trial work or any investigation, you will agree with me that non

verbal communication is just as important if not more important then verbal communication and for us to lose the ability to observe the witness as the witness explains what happened in officer involved shooting shortly after it would be thwart our ability to investigate officer involved shootings. i am concerned that that would be taken away from us because the sfpd proposed mou we received is silent on that issue. i specifically asked sfpd provide iad and dpa personnel a place to visually and observe the criminal interviews. what did we get? da has ultimate authority regarding access to criminal interviews and witness officers so if the da office tells us to take a hike we have to take a hike. that's going to

effect our ability to conduct the best possible investigation that we can. last but not least, this was a ask this was not something in the course of our investigation a agreement between sfpd and dpa. we want today memorialize once and for all the timely exchange of information in the form of records and documents. in other words, as soon as it becomes available to sfpd from sfda. we want ed to get access as well and that has been shut down, period. in our view, the negotiations we had so far are not quid pro quo. to quote you, contracts 101, it is a quid pro quo, it is a negotiation. somebody gives something up, something gets something and there is

both people are unhappy but so far what this has been is a comparison of apples to oranges. there is literally no incentive at this point for dpa to enter into any type mou with the language proposed because it not only does not give us additional information, it actually takes information away from us and if we infer into the mou you cannot in good faith tell the commission we will continue to investigate officer involved shootings promptly, thoroughly and fairly. i understand that the idea is right to know need to know which was discussed here, but the pracicality is that the dpa conducts the investigations contemporaneously with the criminal investigation and that is how it should be because memories fade. witnesses disappear. we need

that critical information when it is available and freshly available to all of us. we shouldn't wait for 2, 3 years until the criminal case run its course to get the information we need in order to fulfill our charter mandates. what our biggest concern is, is that this is an end run around the obligations that sfpd has under the charter. the charter section that created and dpa4.136j and i will quote specifically says, dpa shall receive prompt and full cooperation and assistance from all departments, officers, and employees of the city and county which shall unless prohibited by state or federal law promptly produce all records and information requested by dpa. so, leading it up to the da office and not

providing us with clear information about why information is being withheld would violate the charter and because we are not go ing to gets anything out of i think we are very far apart. what i recommend is that we perhaps when knhigz assign a commissioner to bring us close together or maybe go at it again. i don't know, but- >> hold on a second. >> i want to reiterate-thank you but you are making my point. i didn't come here to argue or debate who is right or wrong, what i came is to ask for the commission blessing to get the mou to the public space to give it to you and continue this process of negotiation. i can talk about everything you

talked about but i don't think that would be fruitful because if you don't have the mou in your hand. we are willing to do that and ask dpa at least try to participate in that process. we are not trying to circumvent dpa. let me be clear, but we are also-very specific things said in the commission about independent investigations, who has control, who has access to information, and my take on that was that if the investigation is truly going to be a independent as much as we get to independent investigation, then the investigating agency, which is district attorney office has control over who they give this information to. i would ask that we have a discussion about that and you may not want to know the why but think it is important you look at the document and we can go point by point about what was said in

the commission and how that ended up in the document and then we can debate it, but i the commission can do- >> not to cut you off i think that makes senseats this point is bring back and agendize and get the information to the public. i ask commissioner benedicto to-assign him as the commissioner to help facilitate the discussion since he is the liaison and doing work with dpa in terms of the audit to help move this along and bring this back for the agenda. >> commissioner--you know, the dog made a big to do about these not able to work collaboratively together. dpa does not have the document to-very eloquent argument, but you don't have all the information. so my ask is before you assign a commissioner we try to work this out with dpa.

this is a 3 way agreement that is very complicated and some of the asks from the commission complicates it even further. if we are going to give this to the district attorney office then we give it to them. i want to point one thing out, because this was the point that brought some up about need to know right to know, our investigator will not get the information either. practice aaround the country on the issue is the administrative investigation usually halted until the criminal investigation is done. we are doing that with the california doj investigation. if you look at santa clara county that is usually the way it works. it is complicated to have three investigationss at it had same time. my ask is try to work this out and if we cant in a very short amount of

time assign a commissioner, but let's give it a chance for dpa and department to work things out as the spirit of these 272 recommendation called out. we dont need a refee on everything we do in my opinion. >> i think you will be able and have confidence in commissioner benedicto and his ability to help facilitate conversations. i will note that we talked about this, which is that your agreement with dpa is separate and apart from the da mou and that was a sticky point why you didn't want to include --out of the three of you, it is right dpa is mandated legally to investigate these type of incidents, so i think that like i said, let's reagendize, bring it back. it doesn't-we shouldn't spin our wheels if we

donts have the other agreement because it is hard to articulate concerns we have at this point. >> we'll follow-if the commission directs that we will follow that. i want to voice my concern that we are having a debate with partial information, which i don't think is fair. >> i agree, why i say bring it back, you will give us the agreement, bring it back and all be on the same page. commissioner benedicto. >> thank you. as i understand you are also granting posting as soon as ready so dpa and public can see the version and at that point you can continue to negotiate with dpa and just be stuck with me in a room as well. i think it is asked you expressed chief. >> with all do

respect, we have so much work in front of us are we go toog bring in a commissioner every time we have disagreement? >> no but this is a important topic. >> it is important and if it is important to show the dpa and department can work this out without a referee. i voice my opposition because number one, the whole way this happened is problematic to me, but besides that, we are trying our best to sit down with dpa and work this out. trier trying our best. we have a district attorney with no obligation to agree to anything with dpa accept what they already agreed to and we are trying to balance these 3 things. issue after issue after issue we get stuck and then have to have commissioner to-we need to put our grown folks pants on to do

the work without having somebody looking over our shoulder. >> we and i had conversations about this and think uniformally in agreement. i ink the this is a special situation that it appears that i think that there is a lot of positives that will come from it. commissioner byrne. >> to the city--thank you. to the city attorney. wouldn't it need a resolution for president elias to assign a commissioner? >> if there is not consensus among the body then yes, you should have a vote. >> then i make a motion now that we give the chief one month before the president assigns the commissioner so that the chief and dpa can see if they can work out this

complicated agreement because it is two agreements with three different parties. >> second. >> i don't think we can take a vote on a item that isn't agendized for action. >> i believe this you are making a decision without consulting-i yield to the city attorney. sorry. >> that's correct. it isn't on for action item, but in terms of not having a consensus in terms of appointing a commissioner then yes, it has to be brought back for formal vote. >> we'll bring it back next week for formal vote. >> if commission will approve we would like to attempt to continue to have this discussion until it comes back for vote. >> there is nothing preventing you. >> dpa-if they don'ts agree to it. >> let me be clear,

the problem to me or us seems very easy. if we can't get sfpd to the table to agree to the agreements we currently have about seeing access and about interview access and assurances that those will continue as is, and memorialize those in writing, then i'm wondering what further-like, i guess what i am worried is what is sfpd going to offer to dpa in return for dpa giving uprights it already has and agreements we already made with sfpd? i can't understand-that is how negotiations work. some people give stuff, some people take stuff but we have been told in the negotiations not only do you not get everything you already get but you are going to get less and much

later. that's why i guess what i wonder is what is incentive for dpa to come to the table and continue negotiation if that is what we have been told thus far? >> i know commissioner wants to move on. the insentsive is you have the document in front of you and at least we can work through-just to be clear, we didn't pull away from the table, so i would like us to continue this discussion so we can try to resolve this because the commission asked for both documents at the same time, and it is hard to do that when we work from a document you can't even see. >> with all do respect we have the one that is here right the one that has been published, and we have-i heard you say that there is one paragraph outstanding and heard several times informally individuals comment that this version we

currently have before us is not materially different from the one that will be the finalized version. the version before us. the one that was published. >> i think there are significant differences. in my opinion. >> based on that this is what we'll do, we are going to encourage you to or i encourage you to continue your talks with dpa. i encourage you dpa to continue talks with the department. bring it back next week for a vote and hopefully there will be progress within that time. can we go to public comment now? >> the public is welcome to comment regarding line item 7. please approach the podium. there is no public comment. >> next item. >> 8. public comment on all matters pertaining to item 10 below closed session including public comment on item 9 vote whether to hold iletm

10 in closed session. if you like to comment please approach the podium. there is no public comment. line item 9, vote on whether to holdite 10 in closed session including vote to assert the attorney client privilege with 10a san francisco administratesive code section 67.10. action. >> motion. >> motion to hold item 10 in closed session and assert attorney client privilege. >> on the motion- [roll call] you have 7 yeses. we will go

into closed session. [closed session]

[meeting reconvened] >> commissioner we are back in open session. and you still have a quorum. line item 11 rsh vote to elect whether to disclose item 10 in

closed session including vote to regarding 10a, san francisco adminivateive code 67.12a. action. >> i will make a motion to disclose factual information received by the commission on 10a which is reflected in theman of the meetling including the dates that the parties met for each lested department general order, the dates of future meetings, if there are no future meetings the disclosure will note that fact. otherwise, to not disclose and to assert privilege negotiator are the rest of item 10. >> second. >> members that like to comment on line item 11. there is no public comment. on the motion- [roll call]

you have 7 yeses. line item 12, adjournment. [meeting adjourned]

going 90 charlie. go ahead. we moved to san francisco in 1982. we came from the philippines. i have three kids nathan, jessica and iva. i was really young. when i had neat, i turned 19. and then two weeks later, he was born. so when he was fine, i used to watch cops all the time. all the time and so he would watch with me. he had his little handcuffs and his little toy walkie talkie. and then whenever the theme song came on, he would walk around and he just thought he was the baddest little thing. i think he was in kindergarten at sheridan because he and i attended the same elementary school there was an officer bill. he would just be like mom

officer bill was there then one day, he said, mom, i touched his gun. and he was just so happy about it. everything happened at five minutes. i would say everything. happened at 4 to 5 years old. it's like one of those goals to where you just you can't you can't just let go. high school. i think you know everybody kind of strays. he was just riding the wave. and i mean, he graduated. thank god. one day i think he was about 20 or 21. he told me, he said mom. i want to be a cop or a firefighter, i said. no you're going to be a firefighter. but that's really not what he wanted to do. his words were i want to make a difference. and that was a really proud moment for me when he said that my dad was a cop in the philippines for 20

years. i think a lot of that played a role into his becoming a cop. my dad was really happy about it. my mom. she was kind of worried, but i just figured i can't stop him. he can make his own decisions. stu. i just want to say what's up? how you doing? good. good. no i'm trying to look good for us to looking good for us to so when he was in the police academy, mind you this kid was not a very studious kid. but i've never seen him want something so bad when he was home. he'd be in his room studying the codes. he really fought for it. hi. what's your name? i'm nate. nate is great with kids, and he would give them hugs or give them stickers. i think that that's a positive influence on the kids, and then the people around you see it.

once he makes that connection with people and they trust him that foundation that respect people look at you and see your actions more than your words and so that i think will reach people more than anything. you could say you later, brother. thank you. all right, see you. it's a really hard job. i know you. you see a lot of the negative for me. i would not put myself through that if i didn't care. you know, you have to be the right kind of person. you have to have the right heart to want to do that. when people ask me if you know what my son does , um, i just tell him he's a cop , and i just feel like i'm beaming with pride. i always told him when he was young that he would do something great. and so to see it. it's i have a moment. i'm very proud of him.

good morning. happy valentine's day. my name is bob, the chief operating officer at the institute and mayor breed and members of the press on behalf of the gladstones trustees, founding president and our gladstones community. we are honored to have you join us today as we talk about the expansion project that we have.