department oversight board meeting is now in session on behalf of the sheriff's department oversight board, we would like to thank the staff at sf govtv for providing technical assistance to broadcast and record this afternoon meeting. you may view this afternoon's broadcast on cable channel 26. let's please stand and recite the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands. one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. dan, please call the roll. yes, madam president. member mango. present afua. mango is present. vice president. carreon, present. carry on is present. member. nguyen present. nguyen is

present. president. sue present. sue is present. we have a quorum . is there a motion to excuse members palmer and wechter? so move. do we have a second? second? any objections? the motion passes. um, are there any announcements? stan? yes this is the regular in-person, monthly public meeting of the sheriff's department. oversight board members of the sheriff's department oversight board will attend this meeting in person. members of the public are invited to observe the meeting in person, except for persons with disabilities requiring reasonable accommodations only members of the public attending the meeting in person will have an opportunity to provide public comment. when public comment is called during each line item, the public is welcome to address the board for up to two minutes on that line. item there will be general public comment at the

end of the meeting for items that did not appear on this afternoon's agenda, but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the sheriff's department oversight board comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available for members of the public who are present in in person by lining up against the far wall and approaching the podium. when it is free, you will have two minutes to provide public comment. the first tone will alert you. you have 30s to complete your public comment. the second alert you that your two minutes are up. that's the end of announcements. thank you. please call the first agenda item calling line item one adoption of minutes. action item review and approve the minutes from the sheriff's department oversight board. regular meeting held on february 2nd, 2020 for. this mike seems longer. it's like really in my face. um, do

we have a motion to approve the minutes? second. right i need a motion. motion okay. um what's the correct motion to approve the minutes? yeah. okay. do i move? yes. so move. there. there you go. and do i have a second on that motion? i'll second. um all those in favor? oh, no. i we have to do public comment, and i'm sorry. public comment. public comment for members of the public who would like to make public comment on line item one adoption of minutes, please line up. uh, please approach the podium when it is free. there appears to be no public comment. i'll call the roll on the adoption of minutes. member mango i iphone mango is i vice president carreon i carreon is i member win i win is i president

sue i sue is i the motion passes the minutes from the february 2nd, 2020 fourth meeting are adopted. the next agenda item please calling line item two the inspector general report informational item inspector general terry riley's monthly report from the office of the inspector general. um good afternoon. members of the sheriff's oversight board. uh, it's a pleasure to be here today . uh, you know, i was looking at the calendar and it looks like i've actually been on the job. exactly eight weeks, so, um, i thought it was. this would be a great opportunity to update you as to what we've accomplished over the last eight weeks. uh, on the job. well when i first arrived on january 8th, uh, of course, i needed to go through an orientation with both the city, but also the department of police accountability. and i want to thank paul henderson and

the department of police accountability and marshal kane, because they had a very nice, uh, orientation laid out for me, uh, sometime seems unrealistic to get so much done in a day, but we got most of it done. um and in part, a big part of it was just explaining to me the orienting me with the department of police accountability to see the facilities, uh, uh, the resources, the divisions and the responsibilities and, and the systems that they employ, uh, that went on for the first week. and in, in the second week, uh, began running. uh bilyeu leave. yeah, it was in the second week we began, um, uh, becoming more familiar with with, uh, the operations as they are basically, uh, taking care of a lot of the responsibilities of

the, of the inspector general's office in terms of handling, uh, the cases that come out of the sheriff's department while we get up and running. now another interesting thing that happened in those first couple of weeks was i attended, uh, the core training with the current academy class of the sheriff's department. so once they finished the sheriff's academy, they go through a six week core training. and so i was able to participate, date with the latest academy class in some of their core classes. uh, unfortunately, i wasn't able to participate in all of them, but some of the ones that i did participate in was like the class on the use of force. uh, the class on the use of the, uh, well, it was all all the defense mechanisms that they utilize in their training and i was very, very impressed with the training . i thought the instructors were really, really good. um and so i

came away, uh, feeling very, uh, comfortable with what i saw, uh, in the, in the, in the core training i.g. williams. were you able to do the, um, the simulation on, uh, you know, unfortunately, that day i was double booked and i wasn't able to attend the that training, but, uh, and that was one of the things i was really looking forward to. hopefully you can. i've done it. um, as a prosecutor on these issues before. and it was it was really interesting. yeah. no. and i mean, uh, i'm really thankful that the sheriff's department has been very, uh, open and helpful. uh, so that pretty much anything we want to see, anything we want to do that, um, and so i anticipate that at some point when things kind of slow up, i'll have an opportunity to get back out there. yes. and then i was going to say in october, our members will have an opportunity. if you haven't gone to the community, um, uh, events at the jail. and then

they, they do allow, um, working on the simulation and a tour through operations and it also includes the junior cadets from the high school, which was really nice to see the youth out there. yeah, that would be great. that would be great. oh, i also saw their taser training, which was i got to be honest, i learned so much about the taser in that training. uh, and so now , now when i see any kind of a taser incident on video, i, i'm looking at it through completely different eyes now because now i understand how it operates. and, um, and kind of the whole theory behind the operation of the taser so that was that was really good. uh, i also completed the mandatory training of the city and county of san francisco, which which is it actually shocked me of how much stuff they, they you go through, uh, in order to onboard with the city and county of san francisco . um, and i was actually very,

very impressed with how much of the training i had to go through. just to onboard with the city and county. uh, i completed a number of mandatory trainings, uh, implicit bias, ethics and sunshine laws, whistleblower program, and just the series of trainings that they require. uh, i also attended the san francisco new employee orientation, which was a 9 to 12, uh, training that was, uh, actually very, very good. um so i was very impressed with that. um then probably one of the most important things that we've been doing over the last, uh, several weeks is meeting with a lot of our stakeholders. uh, so i've met with supervisors shamann walton, who, of course, uh, was the sponsor of the legislation creating the office of inspector general. i've met with sheriff miyamoto. we had a great meeting. um, and really talked in depth about a lot of things

that we want to do from the with the ig's office and with some of their expectations are and where we kind of meet. uh, and so i was very impressed with sheriff miyamoto. uh, we also met with the sheriff's legal team. i spent about a half, uh, a morning with their legal team talking about a lot of the issues that that they're seeing come up and, and things that, uh , uh, you know, we anticipate, uh, looking out for. but also very, very impressed with their legal team. uh, i've met with the public defender's policy team, so i know that, uh, angela is here today to do a presentation. i met with her and the public defender's team, and, you know, we just we just had a general discussions and we anticipate having a lot more meetings and, uh, and i anticipate that we'll be meeting on a regular basis, uh, to i've met with paul henderson, uh, the

executive director of the department of police, accountable. he was kind enough to take me on a tour of the board of supervisors. uh, and i probably personally met about half of the members of the board of supervisors, but i met all of their staffs, uh, their staff members. uh, i've met with the mayors budget team. i've met with the mayors, chief of staffs . um, i've met with the san francisco jail. just this coalition. uh which is the coalition. interesting that was the group that, um, was the they were the group that got the sheriff's department to. and the city and county of san francisco to do away with, uh, commissary fees, uh, phone fees. they, they got funding or they found funding for the tablets that the inmates now use. so i think that they've had a real positive impact on, on being incarcerated

on, on the, on the life of those that are incarcerated and making life much easier for, uh, for their families. so i was very impressed with what they've done so far. and we also agreed to meet on a on a rolling basis, you know, as things come up, uh, i, i've joined the bar association of, of bar association of san francisco's, uh, task force, which is a task force of literally everybody involved within the criminal justice system. and we meet, uh, i think once every four weeks on friday, and we just discuss issues of the day. and one of the issues that that's like currently being discussed, um, although i wasn't able to attend the last meeting, the meeting before that, what was being discussed was the, uh, uh, the policy cases involving the use of, uh, what do you call the not the flying robots, but the

drones. drones. drones uh, drone policy. and it was a very interesting discussion. and so i , uh, i came away actually very impressed with that group, but there were a lot of smart people in the group, and there were members from the department of police accountability also on that task force. and so, um, uh, we also met with allie riker, who is the director of the sheriff's department programing, because one of the things we wanted to find out was we wanted a list of all of the sheriff's programs so that we have a working knowledge on what are all of the programs that they offer to the inmates and their families, and so we had a great meeting with allie riker. i was very impressed with her. and, um, and just her knowledge of, of, uh, the programs that they're providing, but also where, where things can be improved and, and that's always, uh, uh, a positive. then we

dealt with the budget and, uh, we've worked with the dpa's finance team, and i really want to give special thanks to cherise yao and nicole armstrong because they've worked very closely with our team. uh, in terms of preparing our budget, uh, for this budget cycle, uh, we've met with the mayor's budget office. um, we've also well, we've met with the mayor's budget office. multiple times, and, uh, i think everyone understands is, um, that it's important that, uh, you know, we are receive some, uh, budget funding in order to meet our obligations of the office of inspector general. uh, we made two public presentations, runs of our budget, uh, one on january 24th in city hall in room 416. and we made a second budget. uh, present version on february 14th, 2024, in room

408. uh, we finalized and submitted our budget proposal on february 21st, 2024, and, and, uh, i would say this about our budget is that we, uh, prepared and presented a budget that i think realistically assesses the fact that, uh, the city and county of san francisco is in an unprecedented budget deficit, or they have an unprecedented budget deficit. so we understand that. and i think that the proposal that we presented was very realistic in terms of considering that we're in the type of budget era that we're in . um, you know, we only asked for the basic things we need to get the agency off the ground. so i don't think that there were any over asks in our budget proposal. we also, uh, um,

proposed agreements with both the sheriff's department and dpa to ensure that that they continue. well, in the case of dpa, that they continue the investigations and that nothing is compromised in terms of the sheriff's investigation. ations. um, while all the oig obtains funding to hire on board and train staff, uh, because we understand that one of our challenges is that even when we receive the funding, you know, we still have to, uh, hire folks on board them and train them, uh, according to our procedure and protocols. and so that's going to take some time. and our agreement that we're seeking to enter into with the sheriff's department and dpa takes all of that into, into consideration. uh, we also launched a website, um, we developed and launched

that website. and i actually want to thank, uh, dan, uh, leon, uh, for his assistance with that website. um uh, dan was the man on the website. uh, it has links to services and information. um, and we will be updating the website. you know, when as appropriate. and as we develop as an agency. and i've also, uh, focused on, you know, i think it's very important to raise the public's awareness of the office of the inspector general, but not only inside san francisco, not only with the stakeholders, but i think in the greater bay area. and so i participated in a number of speaking engagements on february second, uh, i was asked to be the keynote speaker in the silicon city of san jose. uh, and, and the silicon valley chap of the naacp asked me to be

their keynote speaker at their black history month program. and, uh, it was a great opportunity to raise the profile of the office of the inspector general. and i had a great, great time participating in that program. uh last night or excuse me, before last night. saturday. uh we marched in the, uh, uh, the san francisco lunar new year parade. uh, and that was i was just telling, uh, uh, folks in the audience that it's the biggest parade i've ever personally attended. i mean, i've seen the new york may, uh, thanksgiving day parade. i've seen the rose bowl parade, but a parade that i've actually participated in, i mean, it was just huge. so, i mean, it really, really enjoyed the parade. um, i thought the city did a great job of putting that parade on. um, so it was a great time last, last night, i was a

panelist on a kind of nationwide . uh, well, it went out nationwide wide, but the focus was on the state of california, and it was called a conversation with living legends of the largest black bar associations. and it was an honor to be included in that, that group, because it was a group of real luminaries. his and it was hosted by the law firm of duane morris and, uh, you know, we had some great discussions that were very appropriate, given that we are at the end of black history month and, um, and i think that also i think it's programs like that that raise the profile of the office of inspector general. um, so i think as you can see, we've been very busy, uh, over the last eight weeks. and we really and this is just the beginning. so we anticipate, uh, staying on the same pace and trying to accomplish as much as

we can in terms of, you know, our main goal is to get the agency up and running so that we are, uh, solely responsible for the oversight of the sheriff's department. thank you. and i if i recall, you, you also were invited as a special guest to the fda's black history celebration. i was yes, i was, and i, i really, uh, enjoyed that. um, and you know, there were a lot of people that i knew over there and, yeah, i had a great time and but i think that that that's also a good opportunity to, um, get to know folks in the other agencies and, and, and develop good relationships with them. and so i appreciated the invite and, and, uh, i think brooke jenkins did a fantastic job with that program. so thanks for reminding me about that. and there are any

questions i was going to say. now, you're a member of the asian american bar association of the greater bay area. so i am ending the gala. you were highly requested by the organization and the president to be there, and now you're a member. i'm a member, and i bought a ticket. um, i also wanted to recognize member mango for making sure that our website becomes more user friendly, client friendly in terms of the services and just again, thank her for doing a beautiful highlight and overview of our annual report. and she was too modest to want to take any kind of credit. and so i had to put it in the president's letter as i was introducing the report. but also down the road, if you could keep her informed so that she can actually kind of do her little model and graphics to make it easier for people to. yeah. miss mango also sent us a link to the los angeles, uh, oversight

board's website. uh, that i think i've had a great time just looking at it and seeing where where we can pick up some good tips on putting our website together, and also show, uh, the manner in which they outreach to the public, i think are very, very, uh, was very helpful. and do we have any more questions or comments? um, member nguyen, do you have any. um, no. uh, thank you for the presentation. it was very informative and, um, uh, you look look forward to having you on board and working together. all right. thank you. and i will say this, that, you know, um, i place a high importance on as big things come up, keeping you informed in real time and not, you know, reporting it. just when we get here to the meeting, because there are going to be some

things that come up that you all need to be aware of. and so we want to create that mechanism to get, you know, get word to you in real time when there's something we think you should be aware of. okay. thank you. and member brichter has joined us. member brichter, do you have any questions or comments? uh, no questions. uh, apologies for being late. um, sounds like you've been busy. yes, yes. which is really, really good. so welcome i think, um. what? absolutely love. and i know it's probably something that if we haven't discussed, we will discuss just getting out there and having some community meetings as well too, so that you can facetime, uh, with the different districts and the communities here in san francisco. so they also see, uh, the ig. um, but yeah, outside of that, look forward to you continuing to come back and us having these discussions, but also enjoyed, uh, you sharing, looking for ways in which we can also communicate in real time so that we're not having to be reactive versus being proactive with how we can assist. yes, absolutely. as well too, if we see something that we need to

get out in front of, we want to immediately let you know, like, look, we need to get out in front of this. and so, so yeah, no, i definitely we, uh, want to operate in that manner. it sounds good. and then, you know, our timeline, our priorities and benchmarks. that's a dynamic document. so, yes, as you see a need, we can adjust our priorities as an oversight board. absolutely thank you very much. all right. thank you. so dan, the next item. oh i'm sorry . uh, public comment for members of the public who would like to make public comment on line item two. inspector general report, please approach the podium when it is free. it appears there's no public comment. calling line item three. san francisco public defender's office presentation information item angela chan, assistant chief attorney from the san francisco public defender's office, will present an overview of the san francisco public defender's office. the clients they serve, and their experiences with jail conditions and legal visits in the jails.

miss chan, thank you. and i think it's really appropriate that this month is happy, um, women's history month. so our next two presenters, uh, very strong women leaders in our community, um, and angela is no stranger for her work in the community, coming from the asian law caucus and having been on the police commission and now with the public defender's office, thank you for being here. thank you for having me. i really appreciate it. um, and congrats on this board for existing and the work that you do. and also welcome to inspector general wiley. it was a pleasure to meet with you recently when you came to our office and met with several members of our staff. um i put a some copies here of this powerpoint in case you prefer hard copies. and can i ask in terms of forwarding the slides? should i just ask you to go next? okay great. um, so i'll start again. just saying. hello i'm angela chan. i'm an assistant chief attorney at the public defenders office. i oversee our confront and advocate wing. we confront state

sponsored violence and advocate for community empowerment. i'll explain a little later. more what that means to curious title. uh, my friends sometimes tease me about. and previously, i was at the asian law caucus. i was there for about 16 years managing the criminal justice reform program there, and also was on the police commission for four years. about a decade ago. and we used to meet in this room . so it's a very familiar room for me. um, so i'm just going to jump in next slide. thank you. um, i'll be presenting on our office. what we do some of the programs that we're really proud of. the clients that we serve as well as going into some of the issues that, uh, we work with the sheriff's department on and some highlight some of the challenges that we're trying to problem solve with the sheriff's office. um, as you'll see here in this slide, our office is almost 100 years old. um, and really, we have a constitutional mandate to represent, provide legal representation to clients

who cannot afford a private attorney. uh, private attorneys are very expensive. and so the vast majority of people can't afford that. and so we do represent over 70% of the people who are accused of crimes in this city. and the constitutional right that we're protecting is the right to due process and a fair trial. um, i also bring with me greetings from our public defender, manu raju. he's the only public defender that's elected in the whole state. uh, only reason he couldn't be here is he's in trial. um, but he was glad that i was able to join and appreciated the invitation to our office. um, noting here, too, that we have 120 attorneys, 120 staff. so 240 staff total, and we represent about 20,000 people annually. we i'll talk a little bit later about the caseloads that our attorneys carry. next slide please. so we always try to start every presentation, especially in the community with our theory of change. and our mission. what drives us mano often talks about

this as the why we do the work, not just what we do. um, so our core mission is to fiercely defend our clients. we want to make sure that they have an opportunity for a fair trial. they're presumed innocent and that we turn over every stone to make sure that we investigate their case. and present the most fair and accurate case possible for them. and we take the lessons that we learned from this client representation lesson to develop our local and state policy priorities, and also our community empowerment programs, which i'll talk about a little a little bit later. and to give you an example of kind of how we do this that's very applicable to this board. um, we actually, uh, help to plant the seed for this board because back in 2015, uh, then public defender jeff adachi, um, found through our clients and their family members that there was an issue with and really concerning

issue of sheriff deputies forcing people in custody to engage in gladiator fights for bedding and entertainment purposes. um, obviously gross misconduct. and that got a lot of attention in the community in the press. and it led to the passage of the ballot measure that established this oversight board. and also an inspector general position. so it gives you a little sense of how we operate and the change that we try to make. next slide please. this is a chart. the organizational chart. and you'll see to the left here in yellow this is the bread and butter of our work. our felony and misdemeanor units that defend people are accused of crime. at 850 bryant the hall of justice, which is right next to c.j one and k two. um so two of our jails um we also have our youth defender unit that represents young people. some of you, i think, work on juvenile issues and are familiar with this area. and we have an office in twin peaks diamond heights, where we represent young people. and

really the focus there is about rehabilitation and also reunification with children and their families, because we believe that's the safest and most supportive environment for them in most situations. um, we also have our confront advocate unit that i oversee under this unit is seven, um, different groups and teams. our integrity unit deals with law enforcement misconduct. we keep a database that's open to the public called the cop monitor database. we try to identify and make transparent , um, concerns about misconduct. um, we have our small but mighty community actions team that educates the public, especially when we have an acquittal in a case to clear our client's names. we also have a local and state policy director and our moving a package of policies at the state level where our criminal laws are made in order to try to advance criminal justice reform. and we have our clean slate programs, which are out in the community holding monthly clinics in different

neighborhoods throughout the city to try to help people with removing barriers to jobs, housing and employment, which happens when someone has a criminal record and then our magic programs, we'll talk about a little bit later. our freedom project deals with post-conviction relief and helps to implement recent resentencing laws are called second look laws that have been passed by the legislature that allow people with long sentences in state prison to get a chance to appear in front of the board of parole hearing and show their record of rehabilitation to get a chance at release. um, and then we, in this third column here, we have our, our operations unit, which is very important in terms of all the data that we have to gather, the record keeping, the research that we do, the legal research in order to support our policy work and our client representation and lastly, our chief of staff, um, handles, uh, ensuring that we have we are our commitment to diversity and equity in our office. we are

very proud of our diverse staff at all levels, including at the management level and we are in budget season. so we're very much in the process of advocating for our proposed budget. next slide please. uh, a little snapshot of the clients that we serve. as you'll see here, about 10% of our clients are immigrants or limited english proficient community members. um, most of our clients suffer from mental illness or have are grappling with a substance use disorder issue issue. um, the vast majority of our clients also are unhoused, and all of them are low income. um, and noting that on the right here in this pie chart and this is something i think, um, is particularly egregious in san francisco, but cuts across most counties in california, the overrepresentation of communities of color, um, and so about 75% of our clients are people of color and half of our

clients are black, even though the black population makes up about 6% of san francisco. so there's a lot of work to do in san francisco in terms of racial justice and criminal justice reform. um, next slide please. um, we're proud that as a public defender office, our trial rates are probably some of the highest in the country, meaning that we're not afraid to go to trial. and we are proud of the skills of our trial attorneys. um, and we have a great success rate to show for that. about 40% of the cases that we take to trial, we are able to get an acquittal, um, or a hung jury. so avoiding a conviction, um, and noting that about 97% of the people who are detained in our jails are actually pretrial while awaiting the resolution of their case. so just kind of giving that context . also, i thought it was 80. i was looking at the most recent numbers. i didn't realize it's

97. so a high, high number of people detained in the jail, pretrial, um, we also have a high success rate in terms of dismissals. so seeking a dismissal of a case under california penal code 99 five, because the procedural errors, lack of probable cause and other legal issues that affect the integrity of the case. and lastly, it's not where we're not just proud of our trial rates and our success rates. we're also proud that we provide holistic representation to our clients. um, it's not just about process. sing them through the criminal system. it's about making sure that we get connect and to the services that they need, whether it be mental health, substance use, housing, etc. and so that's something really, uh, is why we have not just attorneys, but social workers that are critical to the work that we do. next slide please. um to give you a sense of some of our cases and our clients, uh, match a face to

what i'm describing here. um, here are some of the headlines, some recent headlines over the last two years or so of acquittals and other successful outcomes that we've been able to get for our clients. this includes this picture of mr. everett here, who's standing in the middle in between two of our amazing trial attorneys. he's, um, he's 54 years old. he was shot five times by sfpd when he was in mental health crisis. he was charged with resisting arrest, threatening an officer and carrying a knife. um, and luckily, we were able to get the case dismissed before having to go to trial and noting the headlines here, the theme are are people who are unhoused being involved in the criminal system and how that is actually be, um, a kind of important fact to pair with that is that unhoused people are more likely to be victims of crime than they are to perpetrate crime, but they are much more likely to be criminalized and to be

incarcerated. next slide please. this will highlight some of our community programs, including our magic programs that i spoke about earlier. so we not only defend our clients in the courtroom, we also try to make sure that we look at community empowerment. we want to prevent folks from getting into the system in the first place, and we want to really put ourselves out of a job is kind of our our goal here at the public defender's office. and so about 20 years ago, we started our magic programs that are programs based in the bay view and the western addition, slash fillmore area to strong black communities in order to, uh, provide services such as our summer literacy program, our fall backpack giveaway program. we just had our black and white ball, which is a really fun event for children to dress up and celebrate with their families. um, and we also hold regular convener meetings with community partners, where it's a space for people to share information and build community. you all are absolutely welcome

to join those. magic convener meetings, which are posted on the magic website on their social media. next slide please. um, i'd skip through. i'll just kind of quickly say that we also have a program called the legal education advocacy program, or leap, where we advocate for young people in terms of their educational programs in sfusd schools. um, and when i was at the asian law caucus, i actually was also involved in the effort to make sure that young people have the appropriate educational plan so they're less likely to get into trouble in school. um, and on this side, i want to highlight our end the cycle program. this is relatively new. we do have a limited number of social workers, so that the social workers, we do have, we've had them focus on more serious felony cases to really try to get to the root of, of the needs in those cases. we in the last two years or so, started to end the cycle program to connect our to get a few more social workers. we have three to work with people who are

arrested for misdemeanors when they first enter the system. because when someone enters the system, that's a chance to intervene in and to prevent a cycle of being re-incarcerated over and over again. sometimes that's even generational. we want to disrupt that cycle. um, and it's really our social workers connecting people with the services that they need. i mentioned our clean slate program already, and then our college pathway project. we started this last year, and these are formal partnerships with sf state and city college to connect our clients with those who are in the jail and those who are released with higher education opportunities. it could start with just a few classes, or it could be full time enrollment. and it's been wonderful to work with sf state and city college on that project . next slide please. so i mention our workloads earlier. um, there's been a couple factors that have led to a pretty dramatic increase in our workloads. um, our felony attorneys can carry around 70 cases for one attorney. our misdemeanor attorneys can carry

around 130 cases. that's an immense amount of cases. and that's even coming from a nonprofit where there was already a high case load. this is even higher than that. so it is quite a bit of work. um, and, and laying out some of the causes here, i'm sure you have probably additional causes you might want to throw in, but includes what i'll talk about later. the trial delays. um, there has been an increase in filings by the district attorney's office. there has been a dramatic decrease in referrals to diversion programs and a complete shutdown of the adult restorative justice program and a significant reduction in the youth restorative justice program. so we are trying to work with the district attorney's office to bring that back. but we are concerned about that. um, there's also been changes in laws that have resulted in also more work and more opportunities, including the racial justice act. i'm not sure if you've heard of this, but it's a relatively new law. um, and where there is evidence of racial bias that has harmed or

impacted a case, that's an opportunity to challenge a conviction on challenge a charge or challenge a sentence through bringing a racial justice act motion. so that's additional work that our office has really tried to specialize in, but we certainly could use more resources for that. and noting, too, that the jail population has increased from a low of around the 800 seconds to in 2020 during the height of the pandemic, to about 1100 people now. and so those numbers do mean that we have higher caseloads and more work in our office. um, next slide and you might have seen this in the headlines. there has been a backlog of cases, uh, where people have asserted their speedy trial rights, uh, 60 days to hold a trial. if you have a felony charge, 30 days if you have a misdemeanor charge and trials not being held within that mandate time frame mandated by state law and also

constitutional protections, and as a result of this backlog, that started with covid, but really continue well beyond that emergency. um, we got to a height of over 1100 cases that were backlogged where people's speedy trial rights were violated. and at that height, about 150 people in the jail were there waiting their cases past their speedy trial deadline . and some of the concerns that we highlighted is that close to city hall is our civic center courthouse, which is a second courthouse that we could use in addition to our hall of justice to hold trials. and unfortunately, only about 1 or 2 courts rooms at that nearby courthouse was open for trials for criminal trials. the rest were used for civil matters, which are less time sensitive. um, and there was a concern it was there's been a finger pointing at the say between the sheriff's office and the courts as to how do we problem solve,

what's the issue here? um, and the courts had pointed their fingers to the sheriff's office, so they needed more share of staffing to hold the hearings at civic center. our office said you know, we don't care what the issue is. we just need these trials to be held because we have clients who are waiting with their rights violated. so we were just pushing, pushing, pushing everyone involved. and that includes filing a lawsuit that's pending, that's against the courts in order to try to reduce the backlogs and get them to come up with a comprehensive plan to address it. we also held back to back summer sit ins eight weeks back to back at the hall of justice last summer to educate the public about this, and also to put pressure on everyone around to get going on addressing the backlog. the good news is, from all that work, there's been a significant reduction in the backlog with felony cases. so that's been a relief. and there's been trial after trial now happening at the hall of justice on the felony end. but on the misdemeanor end, we continue to see a very significant backlog, um, both

for people who are out of custody and in custody. and so that there continues to be a push on that. and 20, 24 were four years, you know, past the height of the pandemic. and we're still dealing with this issue. and it is pretty unique to san francisco. um, of the 58 counties at san francisco that probably has the worst backlog, um, alongside santa clara county . but other counties have been able to address their backlog, and some didn't even really have much of a backlog. um, next slide please. um, noting are the funding for our office here. we have about $51 million in our budget. um, the district attorney, by contrast has $81 million. our budget's about six times less than the sheriff's department, 13 times less than the police department. um, and we do represent about 20,000 people a year, over 70% of the people who are in our criminal system in san francisco. next slide, please. um, the war on drugs. and so over the last few

years, there has, in my opinion, been a revived war on drugs in san francisco, where there's been a focus on law enforcement approaches versus public health approaches. and as a part of this revived war on drugs, the sheriff's department has deployed 130 deputies, not all at the same time, but they've applied. they've designated 130 deputies to be deployed to the tenderloin to engage in drug arrests. and this is a small neighborhood that's already has been saturated by law enforcement, including sfpd, california highway patrol, california national guard and federal drug enforcement agency. so there's a lot going on in there. and something i often comment on from a policy perspective is it would be wonderful to see the tenderloin saturated with nurses, doctors, social workers also, so that people who need help can get it. um, back in october 2022, we held a press briefing with daca peters with treatment providers to really lay out evidence based

public health strategies that are more effective at addressing substance use disorder than arrests and incarceration. i included on this slide a qr code so you can view the youtube record lauded presentation in case you're interested and get to know some of the experts that we brought to have this discussion. um, we're concerned, and i think the numbers bear it out that a decent chunk of the increase of people in our jails is because of this revived war on drugs, and in particular, where we've seen that with ck one, which is the intake part of the jail that we have people there who are going through there for public intoxication, for substance use disorder, and they're being flash incarcerated . so therefore, a few hours a day and then release out and we have reports from our clients where they are going through a really excruciating withdrawal and not receiving the medical

support and attention that they need. so it really just feels like for our clients, um, not not a helpful situation, not something that will get them off of substances, but really something that's just putting them through a really painful, um, time. um, and what we would, would really like to ensure is that people instead get access to low barrier, um, uh, easy to receive and accept services rather than this flash incarceration that's been going on now for, uh, a year to two years. next slide please. this is where i'll spend a little bit of time just giving our observations regarding the jail condition. and, uh, you know, our partnership with the sheriff's office to try to address and problem solve some of these issues. um, so, first, legal visits, these are when our staff, our attorneys, social workers, paralegals, investigators go and meet with

our clients. these legal visits in the jail are critical. and they're also not optional. they're required. it's required that we get access to our clients through the constitution , through statutory protections, because it's a it's a part of that right to a fair trial and to due process. yes. if we can't meet with our clients, we can't prepare them for their next hearing and prepare with them for trial, which means that people are less likely to get released, and that contributes to increasing numbers in our jails. so it's a top priority for our office for those reasons , we engage in legal visits in three main ways zoom visits in person and also via phone. and we meet biweekly with prisoner legal services to problem solve issues with legal visits and also try to alert them in real time when we encounter them. um, they've been incredibly helpful. i think nick presented to you pretty recently, and i just want to say that nick and his colleagues, melinda and asia, have been awesome. really ready

to do work, uh, working well outside work hours to try to problem solve issues. um, in terms of zoom legal visits, some things that we've seen, that's a reoccurring issue that we've been trying to problem solve and have been also asking for support from the sheriff's. it department is, um, uh, bad sound quality. sometimes the sound quality is on one end, sometimes it's on the other, sometimes it's on both. and when the quality is so bad that you can't hear one another, you can't conduct a proper legal visit. so those visits have to end. um, and some times get rescheduled. that delays hearings. we've also had issues in this past week. there's been um, it's happened three times already or three days out of two weeks where we've had a row of visits canceled, zoom visits canceled, and with no notice about why. and we're still following up and trying to figure out why those visits have been canceled. and that's been very disruptive. um, we have also had issues and it

hasn't happened in the last month or so, but definitely, uh, last year and the year before this has happened, where some deputies would place the tablet that was used for a zoom call outside the individual cell. so there's no attorney client privilege, can't conduct the call when that happens. and so that really ends up the zoom call being canceled and having to be rescheduled. we've been problem shooting some of that, but more work needs to be done to make sure it's consistent across the board that people are brought to the relevant visiting rooms to have a proper, confidential visit. uh, in-person legal visits. um, this is critical. also to our work, and nothing can replace being in person and making that effort to see your client and as you know, our third jail three is down in san bruno a bit of a drive. so when our staff make the trek there, if they aren't able to get in a legal visit, it really throws off their whole day. it can take a few hours to do this,

and we've had some issues with not being able to get in a legal visit because of lockdowns and short staffing. um, noting that neither are appropriate reasons to not allow a legal visit because legal visits are constitutional and statutory. right. so we've been trying to wade through that by asking for the watch commander, asking for the supervisor on staff. sometimes we can problem solve it. other times it's kind of a waste of, you know, a few hours and delaying of hearings because we aren't able to. so that's work in progress. recently, we also had a deputy at cj three in san bruno walk into a legal visit and told our staff to cut short a visit because of short staffing. um, also not something that's legally allowed. and so we are concerned about that and have flagged that for the sheriff's office. um, we've seen also a pattern of the use of count time, which happens several times a day in each of the jails, where a count creep, uh, the count time seems to be going earlier and ending later. and that being used to in some

situations not allow a legal visit. and so we've been also asking for a watch commander trying to, uh, go higher up when we encounter a count creep issue where we're denied a visit outside of the appropriate count hours. um, so those are just a smattering of our our legal visit issues. happy to answer questions about that. um, another issue that we've been encountering, and there was a recent news story about this, um, actually coming from the district attorney's office. um is the sheriff's office's duty to transport clients to and from court. over the past several years, in the time i've been in our office, we've seen numerous times where, uh, a deputy reported that a client refused to attend court, and that's why they weren't brought to court. and in those some of those situations, our clients have said, no, i didn't refuse. i wanted to go to court and we were concerned that some of those situations, it's not really a refusal. it's misunderstanding, miscommunication. and sometimes

our client, uh, flunking the attitude test and then being denied a transportation, a court that, of course, delays court delays, criminal proceedings and can contribute to, um, increasing numbers in our jails. and so we've been working with the sheriff's office to try to identify are there certain deputies where this is more likely to happen? can we retrain? can we problem solve here. and so that's also a work in progress. um, client contact with family members. so it is very important to us that our we don't just represent our clients. we want to make sure that we meet the needs of their families and communities impacted. um, and so, so sometimes family members have reported to us concerns about, um, not being able to get a client visit. and during the pandemic, family visits were shut down. it was very slow for them to come back. up until recently, there were only about two visits. opportunities for visits per each jail a month. i understand that that's been increasing, which we really

appreciate. um, however, we want to keep pushing and say we want more access for our families to visit. um, you know, for those who are parents to be away from your child for any amount of time is excruciating and heartbreaking. so to the extent we can really encourage and support that access our office would really encourage that. um also programing, i think i'm sure this is something you've recently talked about. um, programing was shut down during covid. we are four years out from that and program is slowly coming back, but not fast enough. especially program in different languages to make sure we provide programing for all of our communities who are in our jails. um, and another thing to highlight that has been in the news, um, and has been, uh, discussed is concern about lack of sunlight and outdoor time. uh, i did a tour of the jail last spring, and thanks to the sheriff office for hosting us and, uh, a public defender, manu

raju, for those very helpful visits. i did notice, though, that there was a lack of sunlight, lack of access to fresh air, and our office is concerned about the impact in terms of mental health and long terme illnesses that people experience from lack of those very basic things that could lead to heart disease, depression, um, high blood pressure. and we've had clients that, due to the travel delays, have also been detained even longer in those conditions. and, and their families have expressed concern about that, um, about family members coming home with those types of conditions. we understand that in october 2023, um, the judge in this lawsuit that was filed by an outside party, um, ordered the sheriff's department to provide at least 15 minutes of sunlight every day to people who've been detained or jails for one year or more. um, i understand there's some issues and discussion about compliance, and the judge is doing a tour soon of the jail. we do hope

that that these issues of just basic access to sunlight and fresh air will be addressed for our clients. yes. and just a last note here. in terms of laying out some of the challenges that we're seeing. um a concern about in-custody deaths, um, we have had at least two clients die in custody in the last two years. um, allegedly by suicide. i believe in both those cases. and we are concerned that these clients had mental health needs that were not being addressed in the jail and do ask for a thorough investigation of those deaths. um, both behalf on behalf of our office and also the family members who've reached out to us and have expressed you know, deep concern. um, and that kind of goes through some of the some of the issues i wanted to lay out. um, this is my contact information. you all are welcome to contact me. i try to be as accessible as possible. well, i think i know at least a half a half of you on this commission and really appreciate all of your service to san francisco.

thank you. angela do we have any questions or comments? i'll start with member mango. yes thank you so much for your presentation and for walking us through the context. and i can see how how, um, kind of like the values come to life through the work that you guys do. so, um, just to maybe some two questions on the slides that you presented. i think that in the court slide, you mentioned 90% pretrial trial clients are waiting. um do you know what the breakout is? is it like. and i'm , you know, not a legal person? i don't really understand the language, but like, is it like misdemeanor offenses or is it like felony offenses is for that is a great question. i have the most recent stats courtesy of the sheriff's office and it does not break it down. um, so if anyone in the sheriff's office would like to comment, you're welcome to i don't have that number. i just know that the vast majority of people who are awaiting pretrial, um, uh, that

that's the high percentage. and if i were to hazard a guess, i would guess that a lot of those individuals are are facing felony charges in that situation. okay. and then also, thanks for explaining the whole the bottleneck situation with the trial delays. i can see that from from the graph that you had it like spiked, especially during the pandemic. so i think it's also very interesting what you noted that other um, counties aren't experience seeing the same issues aside from santa clara. do you know what that is like? are they are they like what the reason is for the santa clara? yeah. other um, so outside of san francisco and santa clara, other counties continue to hold trials during the height of the pandemic in 2020. and 2021. they found, for example, san mateo county opened their convention center and held trials. and so they were able to actually not accumulate a backlog. because of that, san francisco did not take those actions, was not proactive, was not was not planning. and as a

result, we're in a situation where four years later, we used we still have a very significant misdemeanor backlog and are just making some progress on the felony backlog. so we are concerned. i understand that santa clara had a similar missteps in how they handled it, but i would hazard a guess at this point, san francisco might have worse numbers in terms of our backlog. okay well, it's good because you have the inspector general here, you have the board, and you also have the sheriff's department. um to listen on this, okay. on the last slide, the jail conditions are these listed on priority order. oh, that's a great question. um, i definitely don't think they're in priority. i because, of course, in-custody deaths is something that we take extremely seriously. and when we have to speak with those family members who have a lot of questions about why their family member died in custody, it is extremely difficult. so this is not in any particular order here. i did want to highlight legal visits because we i have the most information about that,

um, since i've been dealing with that and i'm really granular level. um, so that's why i started there. um all right. well, thank you, i appreciate it. thank you for those questions. member. dwayne. uh, i don't i don't have any questions. thank you for your presentation. thank you. yeah. thank you. so much for that. uh, assistant chief chan, that was very, very thorough. oh, good. i'm glad to hear that. and, you know, i got an opportunity and just want to give a big shout out to public defender mano raju , uh, who spends a lot of time in community. i think the last time i saw him, he was in district ten and we were going through the district ten safety plan and i got to see some of these numbers on a on a much smaller level than what you just presented today. um, but i think, you know, really what i wanted to highlight was just, again, just being able to look at the numbers. and both of us have been on the police commission and just allowing folks to really connect the dots. when we look at racial injustice and how it, you know, starts off with the police department and how it continues

to go, uh, even with the sheriff's department. so i think i just wanted to make sure that we really highlighted that. and again, i think we're also hearing some consistent themes, uh, that we just heard last month at our meeting when our members from the reentry, uh, community came out and talked about lack of services being able to get time with their loved ones who are in jail. so as we continue to hear these themes, i hope we continue to, you know, have that dialog. now that we have the ig here where, um, we can begin to move the needle forward with information that's consistently coming, not just from community, but also from other agencies. so, uh, look forward to you. you all continuing to come and provide us with information and things that we can do in order to push some of these things forward. thank you for that. really helpful comment, commissioner. um, i see the work that this sheriff oversight board is, is charged with doing, and this our new inspector general as racial justice work because of the great gross racial disparities that we have in the city at every level, at access to

services, at education, at employment, that and also with arrest rates, incarceration rates, release rates, pretrial um, convictions and sentences. it's every step of the way. there is racial disparity. and, um, it is shocking when you go into our jails and you see that it's significantly majority minority both in juvenile hall where i used to spend a lot of time working and in our adult facilities, it tells you there's something seriously wrong. and we have a lot of work to do in this city. vice president great, thank you so much. assistant chief. and it's really great to have someone with your experience and involvement directly in community. i think that it's wonderful that, you know, you picked somebody like you to be in this position. um so i had a couple questions. um

what is do you have a formal procedure or protocol for public defenders to address concerns with the sheriff or do you have 120 attorneys? and they do they go through a manager or a process? yes. um, because one of the things we want to do is we want to get your clients the immediate help if they need. right. so if there is an error or there is a mistake, we want to be able to know that there's a process by which it's being communicated, communicated and addressed promptly. right and consistently between all your public defenders. 120 is a lot of different opinions and different approaches and styles calls. um, so do you have a policy and procedure for what, uh, public defenders need to do to assist them in getting resources or addressing any concerns with the sheriff? that's a great question. and i am, uh, i am a very organized systems kind of person. so i always ask the same questions

like, let's make sure we streamline this. let's make sure we're also thorough in capturing our concerns. um, and as timely as possible. so with me joining the office about two years ago, um, it's myself and another assistant chief. he actually oversees our operations. um, and the two of us meet, uh, every two weeks with the sheriff's office. we've been meeting with prisoner legal services last year or so. prior to that, we met with chief deputy, uh, fisher paulson. and we also do have a line to chief deputy lizette adams. um, to convey any concerns that come up. uh, our attorneys, all of our staff know to raise those concerns with us immediately when they have them, so that we can organize and prioritize our concerns and make sure we relay it some situations, we do run it all the way up to sheriff miyamoto and say, this is something that's really urgent, we need your help. and he has been responsive in returning our calls and trying to address issues. so would it be accurate to say that

if a public defender is independently moving outside of that kind of manage material support structure that you have, then they're not really following the rules to be able to get the assistance from the sheriffs. yes we, we send regular updates to our staff, um, debriefing them on our conversations with problem solving the sheriff's office. so they are aware. here's what we're trying to do. here's much more work in progress. and so our our staff should be well aware. there are some situations where they might have more facts and details than we do. and so we'll say go ahead and email the sheriff's office. but cc us so that we're aware of what's happening and we can track everything. so we try our best to have an organized ship. great. and i think that's really important because, you know, um, as many of the issues that i think you've raised, um, really highlight the understaffing and the issues with not having sufficient deputies, you know, in terms of not having deputies being able to. oh, thank you so

much. being able to be in the civic courthouse when i was a misdemeanor. um prosecutor, i had several, um, uh, trials in the courthouse. um, and you know, as well as there's been issues also from transportation of not having enough staff and you're also indicating to us about in-person visits and not having enough staff. um, so i think that that that's something i, i hope that the community and everyone here on this board really, you know, hears of just how it's impacting your clients to not have sufficient deputies to be able to perform their essential functions. you also mentioned about, i think, um, commissioner afamasaga asked a question regarding the data of what was the felonies and misdemeanors for the 90. um, you indicated that you had the data from the sheriff's office, but do you not keep your own data? um interim. we do keep some of our own data. but in terms of the data of real time, what's happening in our jails, that

information comes to the sheriff's office. and so and it's through a partnership called the safety and justice challenge from the macarthur foundation that, that we do have the various criminal justice stakeholders at the table meeting regularly to try to share information because different um agencies in the system have different data, right? have different information. um, and so we try our best to collaborate and share what information we are allowed to share. okay. great because i think that if you know, we have community members that want that kind of data, that might be something that you address through this already system that you've already established to obtain data. right? because community members obviously want to find out what's the difference between people being in jail who are in misdemeanors and felonies, and especially for serious violent felonies? um, we've seen a lot of different articles, and especially now in an election year, this issue is coming up in so many different ways about who are the people that are in jail versus who are the people that are being let out of jail. and there are reasons for that. um,

so. let's see. what are the things that you think this board should be immediate? what would you say are the priorities? and i understand that you know, i'm putting you on the spot right? you haven't had a chance to talk to your, uh, boss, but what would you say as a practice owner at someone that has come in to kind of overview relook at the system? what are the things that you think that the pd's office can do to have the best conversation with the sheriff and vice versa? and what conversations do you want us to focus on first? like, what are your priorities? i hear you with the death, um, custody deaths, right? um i hear the speedy trial issues that go into the in person, the preparation, the transportation, the visits and whatnot. so it would be helpful to you because our goal is to

make sure that the sheriff is able to do the work that they need to do, and that you are able to do the work that you need to do in providing your essential services that you do for community. absolutely. um and i don't know, i need i would need to look back at your, your charter and your, your powers to see if this is within it. um, but one thing you had mentioned, short staffing. i think that's an issue across many departments. our office certainly, as you can tell from our presentation, feel very, very short staffed. um, and i think when you are short staffed and you're in this budget situation in this city where people are being asked, agencies are being asked to cut their budget, um, and not expand, um, is to look at where are we spending our limited staffing right now? where are we putting people right now? and our office would posit that, um, we should prioritize staffing for when there are constitutional or statutory mandated duties. and

that includes facilitating legal visits and transportation to court. and that's why i've highlighted those, um, for our office. and that's what we would strongly encourage. the sheriff's office to do. um, you know, you're getting pulled in a million different directions every day. uh, and, and also being asked to take on new work. and i, i would say get your core duties done first before you go beyond that, it. i just wanted to add this because, um, i think it's important to note here because what i'm hearing is not under agreed and understand that understaffing, sheriff, understaffing is a problem for everyone. i totally hear that. but what i'm gathering from her presentation is even from like zoom meetings, which i don't get. i mean, unless someone can walk me through how that is, is extra work for the sheriff's department, i need to understand , like why that would be an issue to set up those zoom meetings and things that would

kind of help bring, um, move things along. we we've had the same question. we've been trying to figure that out because, um, it has been really helpful to have be able to have multiple ways of visiting our clients, including zoom visits. it's very useful. we want to keep that going. but we have been trying to sort out why it's pretty challenging. it's not that smooth. so i actually have one more question. um, and then i it's more of a comment because i have to say, i think, you know, and from my professional and past experience, i believe the san francisco courts were already backlogged before covid. so we were already dealing with a really, um, dire situation in the courtrooms, both civilly but especially in criminal courts. and i distinctly remember giving offers of diversion and all of those different programs and then being like, no, we're going to trial. and i was just like, but your client. um, so i think it's, i think really important,

especially when it comes to misdemeanors, is also for deputies to really, you know, public defenders to accept clients that are offers that are fair and reasonable also. and i think, you know, that that is something that, you know, i felt like there was moments when i went to work and i was like, oh, justice was not served today. you know, and as someone who cares passionately about justice because i, i genuinely believe i am of the mindset and this is my own personal belief that victims without justice are future defendants. i have reviewed numerous mitigation packages of defendants, and the stories that you hear are heart wrenching, and especially in juvenile, right. when you do that work and you're like, no child should ever have to have experienced this, right? um, so i'm hoping that in our position as the board commission, we can be a support to you in making sure that you're getting the communication that you need and

the prompt responses that you need in addressing these issues so we can cut through a lot of sometimes the divide between both offices and the law enforcement to really get like, if your client needs medical attention, let's get let's zero in on that and be as responsive. and that's one of my goals is to ensure that the sheriff's office is as responsive as possible. as soon as possible. and if there is issues with response, being responsive or with the approach is that that's the things we want to know, because our charter does require us to look at the policies and procedures. right. and the sheriff has just had an overhaul of their entire policies and procedures, which i am hoping are are going to be improvements. right. and we're going to see hopefully those improvements. so you are the ones on the ground dealing with those policies and procedures. so we do want to make sure that there's an open line of

communication. so that we can address that. um, and, and your comments definitely do not fall on deaf ears. and we're very happy that you're here at the table presenting it to us. so thank you so much for your time. i appreciate that very much. and i'm glad to come back. i'm glad to bring other members of our staff to provide regular updates and also have an open line of communication and regular meetings with inspector general wiley. we're happy to do that. and we are, you know, this board is came out of some of our work. so we really want to support you all in being as effective as possible. so we appreciate your service. my $0.02 in here and i am time sensitive. and we are going to work on charter amendments today as we speak. um, so i also and you, you've known me for a long time. so i am very much about community in a multi-pronged approach. worked with patty lee on human trafficking issues. um, so, so one of the very effective approaches we've had is a multi-pronged approach with all the stakeholders at the table. so on the commission, on the status of women, we had the

family justice council, uh, family violence council. so that actually stemmed domestic violence homicides to zero, uh, for a period of almost four years. so that meant we had public defender represented da victim services, um, adult probation and the courts all present at the table. we met, you know, once a week. i mean, i'm sorry, once a month. and so i think sometimes the small things addressing things, um, in a very methodical way, actually stems bigger problems. and so when people think, and i don't love meetings, so i like to be really efficient. and so, um, people who know me template s i love templates. so if there is a particular issue, um, that can be addressed, a particular person. so people don't have to fish. i mean, it's so difficult for the public. i work as a public sector attorney, and so i'm very conscientious. when someone reaches me in person, i know how many channels they had to go through where they didn't get an answer, they get didn't

get their problem resolved. so i'm hoping that we can streamline and make sure. i mean, it's great that we have, um, terry wiley as our inspector general because he is very hands on, um, getting the problem solved. and so i'm hoping that, you know, when you can bring issues to us and we are, you know, we're very fortunate that our, our sheriff welcomes oversight and welcomes issues brought to his attention and i always tell people, you know, the public, we rely on you, too, because we can't be eyes and ears all over. so we expect people to bring problems to us so that we can resolve them. i wanted to go sort of specifically into the pretrial detention. um, so the great our numbers are actually really, i think, from the tenderloin area with that multi task force. um, and that also puts a strain on our deputies because we haven't grown our staff. but the incarceration rate is 50% that the, the population is 50% higher. so that puts an extra

strain. um the maximum hours that a debit can work is 16 hours. so imagine that you can't plan your life because deputy, when you're in your locker room and someone says, sorry, we got to call you back to duty so you can't even plan a life. there's no quality of life. even for our deputies. and when other jurisdictions can maybe offer more money, the housing costs are lower. we are actually continuing to lose staff and not only to retirement, but, you know, really younger deputies who want to have families and a more stable life. so you know, we're we do the balance. and when i look at the entire justice system, i'm looking at the families, the individuals affected by the criminal justice system, but also the quality of life for those working with our sheriff's office. so i hope that everybody kind of brings in that perspective because it's all a whole continuum and a balance. so i also wanted to ask you about the impact of the elimination, essentially of the bail system in san francisco. if that's had an impact, too, in

the increased incarcerated population. that's a great question. um, i don't think that that's been the most significant driver. it's been a big change. um, for our office and our clients. but i feel like that that's not the main thing that comes up. we're talking about why there's been an increase in jail numbers. it's really this, um, increase in law enforcement in the tenderloin. it's been the reduction in diversion. and going back to your comments, commissioner, i am a, uh, very committed to restorative justice . and that's been some of my work in this office is trying to revive that program because it has been shut down and so finding basically more ways to allow people to leave the jail in a safe way with services is been a big priority. that will help reduce jail numbers and reduce the workload on the sheriff's staff and on our office. and that's why that's part of why i elevated the issue

of legal visits and transportation to court, because when those things don't happen, um, you can't your court case is on pause. and that can prolong someone's detention. so i'm looking at both sides. so victims want their cases to go forward to. exactly. and so i've heard from victims to is, you know, oh, you know, my case was continued because is the defendant refused to get on the bus for transportation. so and while there's a right to speedy trial, i don't know if short of a judge's order, i don't think we can compel someone in custody to get on that bus and get into the courtroom. that's a great point. what are the solutions? or do you think that we. that's what i want to untangle because what we want our clients to go to court, we have every incentive to encourage them to go to court and in many of these situations, our clients have said, i wanted to go to court that day, but the sheriff did not transport me. and so we have lifted up those cases, just

investigate and see what happened here, because it's about preventing from happening again. can we identify can we problem solve and also kind of target. is there a reoccurring pattern in with certain individuals. so we're in the midst of figuring that out. and my understanding is there is a log that's kept when there's a refusal and we're asking to go back through that log and do do a spot check, see what's happening here. i think it would be possible and actually didn't want to talk. that's right. we want to untangle that. we want to understand what happened there, on whose end it was. but our office, we're clear. we want our clients to go to court and so we're trying to figure out the log jam and like, uh, sort of mandate, um, you know, due to the short staffing, um, you know , it's kind of hard sometimes to arrange that legal visit, do the safety and security concerns correct? that's right. and so

that is why it is about priorities. you know, you you have a certain number of staff. it's never enough. and so where do you, um, where do you have your staff focus on. what do you prioritize? have them prioritize. and so for us, you know, what we're asking is to prioritize those legal visits because it does help reducing the number of people in our jails. so it allows them to build a process. their criminal case. also, i think, um, another priority could be staffing. like focus on staffing. the sheriff's department and getting resources and support for the sheriff's office to get more staffing to, you know, arrange those legal visits. well, we have our hands full with our 50 million budget. that's one six of the sheriff's office. so and our massive caseload. so at the same for us to be transparent, that's our priority. we need to address that. um and but we hear you about and we are well aware we've heard from the sheriff's office about short staffing. right. so i had a few other things to just raise. um, in terms of the drug withdrawal.

so, um, i don't know if you tuned into last month at all, but when we had our community partners here and we had cedric akbar, um, we do have people who have been through the criminal justice system who have had substance abuse issues and are now, um, counselors. i think, you know, these lived experiences make them much more credible in terms of how to turn people's lives around. so, um, i hear from some of people like, like cedric, who say, you know, the people who are supposedly running the organizations are not following what would be successful. and so how do you how would we approach listening to people who have actually successful lived through the experiences, who are now counselors to have people who are higher up actually listen and try to get people successfully into reentry? i mean, that is our whole reason for being here to make sure people have the resources while they're incarcerated to become

successful in reentry. and then the supportive services upon reentry. so there's a lower recidivism rate. absolutely. great question. um, and i have that war on drugs press briefing that i linked to here, in case it's helpful to kind of dive deeper. and we do have a number of experts who have spent decades in this area, um, speaking at that press briefing to explain the approaches. but what i learned from that press briefing is that it's not a either or in terms of the types of programs. um, there are, i believe, um, cedric might be one of these individuals. i'm not sure, um, that are advocating for abstinence based programs which have their place and abstinence based program and for some people, that works really well. and that's actually what they need for other people, it might be something on the kind of a different part of the continuum or the range where it's harm reduction, it's reducing substance use, doing it in a safer way. um, with ways of addressing overdoses. um, it

might be in that they might be at that in that part of their life. um, and so we in our office, we advocate for the full range. we want services to be culturally competent, language accessible. and whether it be abstinence or something along the continuum of harm reduction, we support all of that. we just want to make sure people get the services they need when they're ready to receive it. and we also find that when it's a voluntary, um, situation, people are more likely to participate and to participate. long terme. so we want to also get people in a place where they can voluntarily receive the services to. and i think sheriff miyamoto has been very much sort of the carrot person in terms of, you know, extra visits from family. what pre-covid? um, and this in particular, i know on the, uh, for the domestic violence, um, those who are incarcerated for domestic violence, having to go through the annual or that year long treatment and classes. so i

believe in offering the services and having some enticement to make sure people are successful. so going back, though, um, one one thing very near and dear to my heart, and because it's in my neighborhood, is the youth guidance center and i wish that and i'm going to just say it out to our leaders before you do something. i'd like people to have a vision rather than be reactionary or, you know, have some kind of populist soundbite in the news. i'd like to see the youth guidance center as a center for kids. i mean, we talk about shutting it down. well, what are the alternatives? um, you know, it's a prime piece of land, twin peaks. i'd like it to be a safe space for kids to go after school, to study, to have a safe, to have a nutritious meal, some kids never see another meal once they leave school or, you know, they or they're unhoused. so that is my goal. and i know there are a lot of people in the neighborhood, um, lifelong san franciscans, multi-generational. they want to volunteer, and it's centrally located. i mean, it's a prime

spot and, you know, um, you know , you know, the bus lines that go there. so it's very accessible to everyone. um, can we get some kind of momentum to look at that? because when i heard that it was going to close, it was shocking to me because some some of the youth that are housed there, they lose their support system. it's not healthy to put someone, especially, um, a young person whose first taste of this justice system is left there and they don't have their support system. you move them out of county. um, for those who who don't have cars or transportation to visit their loved one, that just makes pushes them farther, deeper into the criminal justice system. i cosign everything you just said. our office, patty lee, who's amazing and heads our defense wing of our work. um uh, was our managing attorney for our youth defender unit for 30 years and has been with the office for 46 years. um, she's been deeply

involved in the effort to not just close juvenile hall, but build exactly what you're describing, a place that's community centered, that's provide services to young people . and for those who have to be detained temporarily for whatever reason, a more home like environment. and so we are working on that. there was quite a bit of press and community attention on it a few years ago. the attention has gone away and so we would love to work with you to bring more attention to this issue and revive it, because it requires a lot of people to make this dramatic transformation. i have a quick follow up question. um, so my experience as a prosecutor was, you know, a couple of years ago, not that long, but it was a different, you know, i started at a different time. um, different completely different prosecutors as well, with different policies. um, so one of the questions i have for you is what is the training that you have for your misdemeanor public defenders for trials that doesn't require them to pick up many trials? so for example, my

experience many times was that i need to i was told my managers, i'm not getting enough trials. i need to take this out to trial. this has to go to trial. um rather than really focusing from my perspective on what may be the defendant's needs were of maybe they don't want to get a trial. i've had that experience, regrettably, in court, where i've had defendants say, i want to take the plea, and their public defender grabbed them and say, no, wait, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. and it's been a mess . and i'm hoping that the defendants with misdemeanors lives are not just used as training grounds for public defenders or for prosecutors. you know, because it's not about just training. um the da's and the and the public defenders. it's about reaching justice. you know, and that to me, justice is , you know, thinking about both sides. you know, the defendant has their rights and so do the victims have their rights. so i'm hoping to say this to

express my own past frustration. and i think frustration from other individuals of, of, you know, having defense rights be the training ground for, you know, work because i, i don't think that's ethical personally. and that's just based on my experience and that's not every experience. i can say i've had very positive experience. i feel like justice has been served in situations, but there is a culture of training, you know, um, attorneys. but it impacting the defendants and the victims lives. and i think that hopefully that's not something that is continuing, because that's something i saw readily. yeah. thank you for asking about that. and you can see from the mission that i shared at the beginning of the presentation, it is about client centered, holistic representation and trying to get people out of the system, period. so that they can be with their families and live a good life with many opportunities. and so that's the goal, not trials, a trial, if

it's appropriate in the case, because there's evidence that supports the need for a trial. um, so that certainly we are proud of our trial skills. um, but we that's we, we kind of see that in perspective live in terms of trainings. this office does a lot of trainings of we have trainings almost every wednesday on every topic under the sun, um, including many topics not about trials. so it's been it's been great to see and i've helped to organize some of those trainings. also for example, i didn't highlight our immigration unit. we have an amazing immigration unit, um, that helps people in terms of fighting their deportation. and they will often give trainings about immigration considerations that impact a criminal case. that's actually a requirement that people think about what the immigration consequences might be of a plea or a certain outcome in a case. so we plenty plenty of trainings and it's ongoing at all times. great to hear. well, thank you so much, angela. i'm just conscientious about the time and we will

invite you back. but i expect that you're going to have more dialog and meeting with us and our inspector general. thank you very much for having me here. thank you. thank you. uh, do we have any public comments for members of the public who would like to make public comment on line item three? san francisco public defender's office presentation. please approach the podium when it is free. appears to be no public comment. okay, next agenda item, please. calling on item four. san francisco sheriff's office presentation informational item. lisette adams, chief deputy, will present on sfsu's custody division. well good afternoon. good afternoon. lisette adams, chief deputy of san francisco sheriff's office custody division. thank you for having me. we have a presentation. i'm happy to start with that. i'm happy to start with questions entirely up to you which way you'd like to go. well we'll go with the presentation. thank you. okay. thank you. let's stop

the presentation. um, i am here to present on the custody vision of the san francisco sheriff's department. next slide, please. i just want to start out with the core principles and core values of the sheriff's department that sheriff miyamoto has instilled upon us and past sheriffs before him. and that service, professionalism and pride. we make sure to keep reminding ourselves of that every day as as public defenders office has shown, it's a challenging job as the conversations that we've had, it's challenging on both sides, on all sides. so we make sure to keep reminding ourselves throughout the challenges that that's what it's about service, professionalism and pride in the service and professionalism that we provide. next slide please. so in the custody division we've have a lot of things going a lot

of things at once. just keeping the balls up in the air is what really the main focus of my day is every day. so i'd just like to talk a little bit about the division projects that we have going or have completed in the last year. the first one was the tablets, um, as was discussed previously, community members, community groups, work with the sheriff's office to get free tablets to the incarcerated population on on those tablets, they are able to access all of material on their the tablet automatically translates it into the language of choice of the individuals. we also use it for educational programs and processes, and for some entertainment video visitation. we did this in response to covid. when covid hit, we start shutting down the jails as was required by the city and county of san francisco and the health officer. and in response to that, to keep people connected to their community and connected

to their family. we brought up video visitation. so that people, even though they couldn't have their loved ones, come in and see them, we'll be able to still see them through the video visitations, not ideal, but as those of us who survived covid, we know that's how we kept in contact with a lot of people. what the sheriff's department did, though , in addition, is we've kept that video visitation going even after covid. and as we brought up in-person visiting. so we have both going at the same time. that also applies to our legal visits, our legal visits entirely before covid was in person, when covid hit, while we did have some in person, um, legal visits, a lot of it, both at the request of the health officer, the public defender, and the deputized staff and the incarcerated population, we went to video visitation for legal visits. also, we continue to do that. um, since it was one of the issues that was raised. i'd like to just talk about one of

the challenges of video visitation in terms of both the community and legal. our jails were not built for it. our jails are surrounded by concrete and steel, and all of the things that have to be in place to keep the facility safe and strong, and that's not the best conduit for wi-fi. so when you say, why are we having, um, the challenges in terms of audio, audio and video, it's the physical structure that we have that we work with. um, we have been working to try to put an additional wi-fi, additional lines through that requires money and that requires time. but the sheriff is committed to do it. and we have been doing it as we've gone along to try to keep improving the quality of the services that we provide through the video visits. but it is challenging just based on for anyone who's been to the hall of justice. all of our jails were

pretty much built like that. you know how solid those walls are, how they're built, and our jails was built that way too. so we continue to try to work on that. we've increased program hours. no, we are nowhere near program hours where we were prior to covid. um, not a lot of people want to come to the jails. that's always been the case. we lost a lot of our providers when we shut down during covid, and getting them back to readjust their life and readjust, but the ability to come into the jail has been challenging ali riker has been phenomenal in trying to make sure that we get as many people back in providing services as possible, but it is a challenge. it is one we are working to overcome and we will work to overcome. i'm not sure if we can ever have enough program hours, but we are working on it. facility upgrades and hardening of the jails. we tend to build our jails and walk away. it's not something that people, um, like to think about

spending money in, but it is a building that takes, um, wear and tear, wear and tear. it does so over time. if we don't keep the facilities up, they start deteriorating. it makes it dangerous for the incarcerated population. it makes it dangerous for the staff, and it makes it harder to keep the things going. like we talked about the wi-fi. it's not just hardening, but it's improving. the facility. and we're rehabbing our facilities while we're in there. so just take a moment of thinking about doing construction work on your house while you're living there. that's what we go through every day because we still have to keep the buildings up. we still have to keep them going. the more we do without doing that, when we actually have to do the work, it's a lot harder and it's a lot more money and a lot more intensive. um, so as we get money in, we're going over

deferred maintenance and, and reconstruction and it's tough. but a challenge that the sheriff is committed to do, um, improve staff spaces. we all talk about wellness. we talk about we realized under covid just how much wear and tear, not only on the incarcerated but on our staff. 16 hour days, at least two times a week is what our staff are doing, and most of them are doing 3 or 4 days because they don't like walking away, knowing they're leaving their staff member, um, staff member for, um, significantly under and the facility unsafe. so our people are not only doing the mandatory and it is mandatory at this point. six, two, 16 hour days. they're doing more to keep the facilities up and running and to safeguard the incarcerated population and their partners as staff development sheriff miyamoto is a true believer in training, training responds or helps with

some of the issues that were raised here about how do we make sure that our staff are adept at seeing what's happening? um, recognizing changes in behavioral health and psychiatric issues that comes from staff development and, and keep our staff going and keep them up to date on the best practices as new technology and finding out best things that are happening in the community. so that goes to the staff development, reduction of asset population. that's administrative separation. we put people or people are placed in administrative separation for the safety and security of the facility, largely. and sometimes for their own safety. we are doing everything we can in our power to reduce that population, to reduce that isolation. we have gone through, and working with a number of community partners, both within san francisco and also national. we're working with chicago beyond, and one of the focuses

is reduce the isolation of being in jail and administrative separation is a greater isolation than just normally being in jail, because you're not in the general population with everybody else. so we're working working on reducing that population, and we're doing that through programs, through jail, behavioral health. and just honestly, deputies talking one on one and saying, how can i help? how can i keep you out of here? how can i keep you in general population and going forward, increasing automation? uh, we are trying to those who have worked in san francisco know as close as we are to silicon valley, we are still incredibly behind in using the technology. the more technology we use, the hopefully the more we can use our staff members to do what we like to do, which is the one on one, and dealing with people directly instead of dealing with the numbers and keeping track of things that hopefully automation can do

better for them, for us, for me, phone calls and no, no surcharge, commissary, that was already talked about in the public defender's conversations. so i'll just leave it there as those are projects that the division also worked on. challenges. we've heard it here staffing, staffing and staffing. we can talk all day about staffing, but it's also the resources beyond staffing. we talked about, um, the tablets wear and tear. we put out tablets and we're pretty much replacing our tablets at least once a month or every two months. um, incarcerated population, not all of them appreciate some of the message that comes through the tablets and have to take it out on somewhere, and those tablets are one of them. so we have to keep replacing some of the technology that we have there. uh, we talked about rebuilding the jail while we're still existing in it. um improving occupied spaces , same thing. project management , uh, big thing as we have projects keeping track of

projects, we in my division alone, we've got about 15, 20 projects going and so you times that by every division. and the sheriff's having his own projects and individual units and facilities having their projects, just keeping track of those projects and keeping them on track is very time consuming, consuming culture shifts. um, we had one under covid. we having one as we come out of covid. we have them as we keep up with the expectations of society, we um, let's be honest when before covid, there was a shift to no jails, um, let's start shutting down. let's move people out. there's another shift going on in the community. we, the sheriff's department, has to respond and to what's happening, whether it's the courts that go through no bail for, um, not making people go to court, more arrest while the sheriff's department is part of the system , a lot of things that are happening around us are not

things that the sheriff's department is instituting it, but we are we're it falls back on. so we're going through that shift and dealing with that. as the community changes, change in custodial population. there was a time when i first started there were misdemeanors in jail. we had a population where 40 to 50% were misdemeanors in for drug use. and, you know, they would dry out, they would get out of custody. what we largely have in jail are people who are in jail for violence and serious charges. um, the population of that was incarcerated when i came in is not a population that we have now. so we have to change not only our practices, but our training and our developing our staff to respond to the kind of population that we currently have. competing priorities, as everyone knows it. um there, there. and we

continue to meet those challenges. court mandated activities outside air project um also covered by the public defender's office and mandatory lights out. um, we are responding to, uh, things that we've done for years, practices and as we go through and times change, expectations change. our jails are not new jails. our jails were built 20, 30, 40 years ago. in some cases. and so those jails are not always built for the expectations that society has. uh, sheriff's office does not disagree with those expectations. largely but we do have to do them within the existing facilities that we have. and the resources that we have. so we continue to, uh, trying to adjust to meet those challenges. next slide please. um, this is just a chart of the people that are the command staff within the division i. as the chief deputy, i have a

couple of administration people that work with me. we have three captains, um, our classified unit, central warrants unit, and our hospital ward 77 zero. next slide. we'll talk a little bit about what each one of them does. and a couple of slides ahead. as we said um, staffing has come up. staffing has been an issue. if you look at these slides you can see our hires are not meeting our separations. the last time that happened when our hires met, our our separations was fiscal year 1819. so since then we have generally had more separations than we've had hires in the last six months. that tide has turned. we've gotten a few more people than we have people leaving the unfortunate part is, is that we tend to hire in spurts. when i came in back

in 92, 93, the sheriff's department went, um, pretty much doubled, had their size in, alas, in about 4 or 5 years from that period. and that was largely due to consent decrees from the court. well, that generation in my generation are retiring. um, so we're losing over the last 5 to 6 years, that 3 or 400 that came together, that's the 3 or 400 leaving together. um, right before covid, we had a spurt in hiring. and you can project in about 15, 20 years. that group is going to leave in mass. also so, um, so when we do not do continuous hiring, when we have to resort to bulk hiring to make up for past years, whether it be because of budgets or hiring or that other agencies are providing longevity or retention or hiring bonuses that currently

are department is unable to provide because of budgeting. when we do that, we hire in mass. we lose them in mass, and that hurts the continuity of the department and the services that we can provide. next slide please. county jail one is our intake facility. is located at 425 seventh street. um, the facility commander is captain bill kelleher. it's a type one facility. and basically what it basically what a type one facility means. it is largely due for people who are initially arrested or who are being transferred or are released to another facility under a type one facility. be you cannot be at a type one facility longer than 24 hours based on title 15 mandates. uh, basically, it's not meant to be a place that you sleep. we don't have beds there. we don't have all of the things that we have in our housing facility. it is just there for

the initial arrestees or transfers. as you can see, we're while we're authorized, 83 people, currently there are 54 sworn there. uh, next slide please. this slide just talks a little bit about the average incarcerated population. but what it does do if you look over to the right and writing it talks about some of the things that are done at that facility and the services provided. when you first come into our county jail, as soon as you are escorted through the door, right in front of you is a chair, and that's the chair for triage. that's your first, first encounter with our jail health services. they take an initial assessment of you to make a determination whether or not you can safely come into this jail, even if it's for an hour or two hours. they take a basic mental, a basic physical and mental health assessment of you before you go on with the booking process. in addition to jail

health services, you will see jail health services a minimum of twice you do your initial assessment. there if you're going to stay, you are then seen by jail health services. again, um, you went from triage. now you're at the assessment. at the assessment, they take a much larger in-depth conversation with you and history of your medical process and the things that you have going and the good thing is being in san francisco, unlike other counties who contract out to for profits, um, who may or may not provide the best of service, we have the department of public health that work with us. so they're every information that they're getting from the custody. um, they're also able to double check it. and if that person has been part of going to either zuckerberg, san francisco general hospital or any of the df's clinics, that medical record is there and available to them. so they can tie it all together. so so and

that goes also when they're released, it's not just when you come in. we also provide you any medication that you need. i think for the next 48 or 72 hours to get you to the point where you can go see your own health care provider, um, get you over to the clinics. we have referrals to other clinics outside. died while you're in custody. the dph will provide the ivan to come by. so you can have your eyes screened. get glasses if needed. they also have doctors from ucsf and san francisco general hospital come and provide clinics for just about every well-being that there is. and every medical specialty. if we do not provide it at the jail, then we transport you to san francisco general hospital, provide care and we'll talk a little bit about that when we talk about the jail ward. if you seem to be having some kind of mental issues, either because of your incarcerated or a history of it, we also have jail behavioral health services at county jail. one, they will also speak to

you. see, you. they'll check your history, see if there's any record of that, but also assess where you are right then and there. they're was some discussion about detox. um, are people going through detox? our detox is right across from our medical station so that the nurses can see and keep an eye on the person in detox. and both by our policies and title 15, anybody that has placed in detox is seen by a minimum of twice an hour by the custody staff and twice an hour by the medical staff. so anybody who is going through detox is seen at least four, four times an hour to make sure their well-being and that they're provided the care that's necessary. and that includes being provided detox medications that are prescription medications for detox. i do not believe they provide that immediately. okay um, i don't think that that level of detox kicks in immediately. requiring

that medication. but what we have done is we've made them made arrangements with the department of public health or jail health services to make sure that anybody going through detox does not stay as much as possible. you know, again, not a system that's perfect. we i fully acknowledge that. but as much as possible once that those those people are identified, we try to push them through the process as soon as possible and get them upstairs to county jail two, where we have a nurse that goes around every hour checking on people who are in detox. they definitely provide the medication in there. we'll have them there for 48 to 72 hours, and that's definitely where the medication starts getting provided. most of the people who initially come in and are at county jail one are still under the influence, so that's not the time to start providing medication for them. but we do make sure that they go into to an area where we keep all of our detox blood pressure,

temperature and vitals are checked once they get upstairs and on detox, i believe it's every 2 to 3 hours. um, so we make sure that the detox is are provided. the care that's necessary. we have the or project and pretrial to determine if they should be released. also going through the buffing the buffing process where they check and see if the judge will release them on their own cognizance, and response to the no no bail. um, but for the custodial staff, perhaps the most important thing they do outside of the jail health services classification and our classification are run by our sworn staff. our classification sits down. they run the individual's history. they have conversations with them. has have you been in jail before or have you been in this jail before or, um, have you suffered any trauma in your life? have you had any abuse issues? do you have a drug issue? do you need a special food? do we cover the same things that medical covers but not, you know, in terms of

is there a medication that you need that you haven't told anybody about? um are you at danger for anybody else? do you need to contact anybody and take a history of them to make sure that we house people appropriately and safely? um, the safety of the custody is are most important, but housing someone incorrectly could make it unsafe. not only for them, but for the staff that are required to take care of them. uh, the person gets booked into custody. we talked about the sobering cells. we have special cells down at county jail, one that are mandated by title 15, that we put people in who are under the influence and under unable to care for themselves. we talked about jail, health screening and we also take dna collection to go to the justice portion. there are certain charges that require or mandated to have dna collection done that is done to see if there's any cold cases or anything going forward in terms of that person

in. fingerprinting uh, picture taking. and we talked about the jail medical interview and assessment next slide please. in custodial in the custody division, we also have the central records and warrants in terms of people in custody, these are the immediate liaisons with the courts. uh, they run the warrants. it is run by lieutenant mark conti. um, so housed in 850. bryant for now, until we determine what's going on with that building. uh, next slide, please. so in terms of incarceration, they maintain all of the incarcerated persons booking and records information on commitments, release calculations. they received the court minutes and translate the court minutes into best practices. and what needs to be done. uh, they process the bail, they process all release as. but

in addition, in our central records and warrant unit. and what is taking up right now, i think dividing probably i'd say about 20 or 30% of our focus. and this is fairly new in this terms of units is the public records request. we get a lot of public release records request. uh, people are very interested in what's going on. documentation that's a unit that we're again standing up on our feet and trying to get it up and running and trying to get the resources there. it is. as you can imagine, critically important to for transparency sake, to be able to provide the information that people request and also mandated by law. next slide please. county jail two is also housed at 425 seventh street. that building has two jails, one on the first floor, which is, uh, county jail, one at and the second, third, fourth

and fifth floor is county jail, two. county jail two is a type two facility. uh, basically type two facility means in terms of title 15, we have both of arranged, prearranged and sentence. everybody can go to this facility. other than our type one facility. all of our jail facilities are like that. type two, which is a mix. next slide please. at county jail two, uh, our how will we help people that we housed there? first and foremost, that is the only location that we hire our female that we house our female population. so all females arrested in san francisco and incarcerated are housed at county jail number two, a pod. we have have, uh, transgender and we have some of our s and y, which generally are our dropouts from gangs and people that can't go to general population but do

not arise to the level of needing to be an administrative separation person in c pod, we have on the lower level, we have our medical wing, where people who have medical needs are housed and the upper level is our psychiatric. we have our psychiatric sheltered living unit for our female incarcerated population and on the other side, we have of our, uh, observation, which basically is the psychiatric unit, one step below, having to go to ps or seven zero. these are people with severe psychiatric issues or psychiatric staff are there about ten hours out of the day, 10 to 12 hours at and they are there to provide services to them, check on them and make sure they continue. to de pod is where our kitchen workers are and we have some general population custodies there. e pod is a little bit of

everything, uh, all male, but we have administrative separation. we have administrative separation on the upper level, on the lower level, we have general population open and frank pod is our intake and our administrative separation. so when they first come up from county jail, one, generally they'll go to frank pod for our intake for 72 hours. that way they can be assessed further by classification an observed to make sure they have no other issues. and also medical staff is within that pod. so if they have any medical issues they're they're able to respond. and then from there, after about 48 or 72 hours, we moved them on to other locations. after both medical and custodial staff has had an an opportunity to observe them and make sure that we have them in the right place and they're getting the things need that they need. uh, we have a kitchen in there that was recently remodeled and opened.

we used to we were using the 850 bryant kitchen, and when we shut down county jail for we were a couple about a year or two. we used the 850 bryant kitchen. and then for about a year again remodeling as we're living in we totally gutted the kitchen in county jail two and rebuilt it. and during that time we were funneling the food in from county jail three by van. so we now have that kitchen up and running. um, totally remodeled and again remodeled while the jail was open. uh, they actually cut a wall, cut a hole in the wall on the third floor inside, and sort of had a elevator built on the outside to funnel the equipment. and the people up to the kitchen. um, so again, renovating while you're living in a place is not ideal. county jail two we also have parent child visits. uh, we have, and i apologize for not having a

picture of it because it's, uh, excellent picture. i hope you have seen it before. but but we have a child visiting room that is a standalone phone room. um painted with bumblebees and honey combs and child friendly equipment and child sized furniture. and there they have contact visits with their family members and the family members bring them to the jail. they're escorted upstairs by our nonprofits and volunteers, and they're able to engage directly with their family members, their children for about an hour once a week. and then we have in-person visiting, um, historically, we had visiting saturday, sunday and holidays, visiting were all during the daytime time, pretty much from 8:00 in the morning till 2:00 in the afternoon. and that was saturday, sunday and holidays

after covid hit. and when we brought visiting back up, i decided to address what i believed was an issue that should have been addressed a long time ago and that not everybody has weekends off, not everybody's daytime hours are available. i know to the extent that i finally have weekends off in this capacity, i've had it since i've been a captain, but for years i worked. i worked weekends, and now on weekends i'm probably sitting at a little league or peewee soccer or football thing. um, so having to choose between engaging with your kids and their activities and going to see a loved one in jail and only having just this time period seemed unfair. so when we brought back up visiting, uh, we decided to not only bring back up visiting, but expand it to the weekday hours. but again, limited resources. we have one visiting room at county jail, two um, to use throughout the population. so what we did

was tuesdays and thursdays, we alternate between different pods to allow visiting to take place. it's not contact, it is through a screen, but that way it's now in the late afternoon, early evening so people can go after work. they can bring their kids to visiting after school and it gives them another opportunity based on their lifestyle, to be able to change on wednesdays. we save that for our, our, our, our inmate population who work for us. so we have workers who work in the kitchen or help clean the facility. um, as an additional perk for that, we said we're going to set a visiting for you. and while generally visiting is 30 minutes a day, 30 minutes per visit for, um, inmate workers, we put it up to 45 minutes. next slide please. zuckerberg uh,

sfgate. 77 zero. uh, run by sergeant john malaspina. next slide please. so 77 zero on the seven l side. we uh, house our critically psychiatric, our critical psychiatric incarcerated persons. um, these are people who, at that time cannot make it in the jails. they're sent to seven l to get assistance from the psych staff. their medication. if it's warranted and appropriate, and to get them stabilized to be able to manage in jail and in a jail setting. they're also responsible for managing the security or assisting with the deputized staff who go out there. one of the things we do, a lot of is, um, particularly down at county jail two, because that's our initial intake, is spend time at the hospital with people who come in. unfortunately the incarcerated

population are not always the healthiest, particularly when they first come into jail. um, as was pointed out, they're going through detox and the drugs that are out there now, uh, we're before detox was easily managed in the jail. we're having more and more where people are coming in. and just based on the drugs they're going through, they go out to the hospital for a detox related issue. and sometimes they're out there for five, six days. and that's five, six days of a deputized staff having to be there 24 over seven. um, provide security for them and for the hospital because they are still in custody. what's over the thoughts are whether they not should or should not be once they are incarcerated. our job is to provide the security so we're there 24 over seven. and i can tell you last week, arc county jail two had one person, uh, two people at peace with which is the psychiatric emergency, which is a mix of

everybody brings someone to psychiatric emergency, just as it says it's people who end psychiat sick emergency psychiatric distress. we had two people down there. we had two off wards at our high point. we had two people in ps, three people on an off ward, which means they were put on a ward at the hospital, and we had two mhz, which is basically someone sitting in the emergency room. so out of one jail we had five people or five custodies outage out to the hospital and one of those custodies was an mre for which for us means is a two deputy escort. so that took six deputies out of the jail and that ran for a good 2 or 3 days before we got any relief that six deputies for three shifts, 24 hours a day for three days, that hurt. so when we talk about the short staffing, even though

you can look at our numbers and say, yeah, they're short, it's also response to the things that are required to do, and we are required to do at a moment's notice. um, county jail two they went out during the night. team i believe we had in 119, which goes from 1900 to, i'm sorry, 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. they had three hospital runs that night. team came in three deputies below, minimum three hospital runs that took them six below minimum. and they had to make do with the staff. they had then and there and make the adjustments. so in terms of legal visits, and while this was a night team, the same thing can happen on a day team in terms of legal visits, zoom visits, whatever the visits are, we don't cancel. and i have written stated that to my staff. we see legal visits can not be canceled. we're absolutely right. they have a constitutional right to it. that doesn't mean that we can do it

right away and that's what i get from our staff, is i'll get the complaint. they'll talk to pls, i will go down and talk to the captain, talk to the staff member, find out what happened and they'll give us this is what happened this day. we had three hospital runs. there was a fight. um we were having a worker doing some painting in this room over there required us record, required a deputy escort and. and they had to wait for 45 minutes, and then they left. so, chief adams, i'm looking at the clock. could we wrap up in two minutes? i you know, absolutely. back at a future date when there's other issues. um that you can present with us? absolutely. can we go to the slide that talks about the annex, please? that slide right there in response to surge in a population and absolutely. ah, i , i took over this position in february of 2023. the jail population has increased 45% since i've been there. um, so in

one year we've gone up about 45% in our jail population. and in response to that, we've had to reopen in, um, a couple of dorms of the annex. next slide please. we talked about classified session. so let's slip skip over the next two slides, please. and let's just go to the jail population. this is just a tracking that we've done on where the jail population has gone, where it started back in 2023 of january 3rd. and just where it's gone today. uh, the numbers on the slide can tell you this month our average population or. excuse me, not this month since this month has just started, but our average population of january was is 1152 5% change in one month. and had a 44% change from last year. and where it comes from is our bookings, our bookings have gone up 16. um but in in relation our

releases have also gone on. um, some people are staying more, but we are getting a lot more people coming to our custody. next slide please. and this just provides a breakdown of our jail population in. and considering the time i'll, i'll close there. next thing is just more classification information. um so i'll open it up for questions if anyone has any for me. thank you. um, i don't know if you want to hold questions, or we could submit them through chief ju, and then, um, have chief adams answer them. just in the interest of time to get to our charter. yeah, that's fine with me. i did want to just bring up. i had previously asked for data. um, and i'm not sure if you were. this was conveyed to you, but specifically, one of my questions was regarding the tablets. this is what are the expectation of privacy that the defendants have on those tablets ? because there's going to be metadata and access to that. i

know that there's the recorded line that there's the preface of saying, hey, you're being recorded, right? and it's everything you say can be used, you know, um, so i think that would be helpful to, to learn what that was. um, at a, at a different point. great. quick answer is none. no. okay. yeah we'll get more information of what's provided. but um, right now there's none. okay. um, i just had one quick question as well too. i mean, outside of the biggest elephant in the room, when we talk about the staffing and resources and the money for it just what would be some suggestions that you can think of that would help with staffing, just in terms of you talked a little bit about, you know, having groups that are coming in like what are some strategies or some things that we might be able to do or that folks aren't thinking about and should be thinking about because it's the same thing with the police department. right? just quick, you know, one, 1 or 2 things. um definitely our

recruitment. we need money on our recruitment. um maybe stop going in the same pool of everyone else. um california's pulling people in every direction. we might have to go outside of the state. a lot of departments go to other areas where, let's be honest, the money that we provide in cal fornia seems large compared to what they get. i talked to the captain in charge of that, uh, last week, and i told him, i said, you know, back east, there are 20 and done for most, most departments in back east they do 20 years and they're retired automatically required. they're still fairly young at 20 year 40, 45. and if you go to the big cities, they're not going to be in culture shock by coming here. uh, the other thing i would add, um, signing bonuses is, uh, it's we have zero in terms of a signing bonus and we're competing with people with 25, $40,000 signing bonuses. and the final thing i would say is retention, pay retention pay and

retention pay, because as important as this gets, new people, one of the things that we're having a problem in the department right now is keeping people here and getting that knowledge to pass. um, from time to time, i'll jokingly remind the sheriff when he reminds me i'm at will and you know, it's done in a joking manner. i also remind him i'm also, at 30 years and should be gone at, and i'm trying to find a reason to. i'm trying to find a reason to stay. and while i love the department, i want to support the department and want to support the deputies. i am maxed out and i'm staying for the love of the department. but my family is also saying, why are you there for? um, so if there is a retention pay, i could actually give them an answer. thank you. thank you so much. yeah, and succession planning is so important to without that institutional knowledge, we don't have good succession planning. yes. thank you. thank you so much. um, do we have

public comment on this item for members of the public who would like to make public comment on line item for san francisco sheriff's department presentation, please approach the podium when it is free. there appears to be no public comment, so i'm going to have, um, marshall kind indulge me. and i kind of gave him the heads up that we may have to move him to the next meeting. so we get to the charter. i also think it's important that, um, member webster also be able to hear your presentation, because it's so important. um, and that would be the firewalls on the administrative investigations, criminal investigations. and then the fifth amendment protections. so thank you, marshall, we have your so i would ask the members to actually just review that before the next, um, meeting. and so you'll know the kind of presentation that marshall will give. so next, um, because we are on a pretty urgent timeline in terms of this, that's why i wanted to get to the charter amendments. um, and then i'm going to have, um, our deputy

city attorney, jana clark, kind of preface, uh, what happens? i think she sent out an email kind of detailing the procedure, and we have several documents i purposely didn't do any more because, um, i didn't want it to have it like an interim meeting. so all these documents are here for our discussion purposes. i will keep a running list, and then these will be recommendations to our potential legislative sponsor, who hasn't 100% agreed yet. but we're like 95% there. so i just want to give you that as a layout. sure. um so this would be calling line item six. sorry amendment to san francisco charter 4.137 language discussion possible action item. discuss and review proposed drafts of amendment language to sf charter 4.137. um, thank you. so the process, i think that's what you're asking about is um, so for any charter amendment to

be introduced, it needs a sponsor. and that can be someone on the board of supervisors or the mayor's office. and what happens is, once there's a sponsor that, um, that sponsor then works with the city attorney's office and most likely someone on my team, most likely me, frankly, um, to, uh, help draft whatever amendments the sponsor wants. and and, um, and at that point, then it's introduced at the board and then the board votes. and i think that they're due in i think that the due date would be mid summer , around mid-may. um and so what this board can do is, is make recommendations ones and then, um, present them to a sponsor. but but um, but it would be ultimately up to the sponsor. what any amendment would look like. um and so what i did was some of the drafts that were circulated, which i'm pretty sure were posted, um, on the in connection with the agenda items. um, but so i went through

and, um, looked at some of the suggestions and it looked at some of the, the suggested or proposed amendments and made some suggestions. owns it. that's not a substitute for the process that will happen later. if there is a sponsor, our office will go through the, you know, word and period. by i mean in, you know, great. um like we have to approve it as to form. and so in order to do that, we would look at it carefully and working with the sponsor. so, so my review wasn't approval as to form, but just to give suggestions on sort of the substantive substantive issues that i, that i identified, which i've, you know, shared with the board. so any any other questions on the process? i'm happy to answer them. now. i think we can dive right in and what i'm going to do really quick, actually. jan, one quick question. and it's probably rhetorical question. i'm hoping the sponsor can also be the person that originally wrote the legislation. right. that's correct. president icu, as we talk about 95% in terms of

potentially having someone to sponsor, have we had discussion and conversation with the person who originally wrote the legislation? i haven't yet. i've had it with somebody who is on budget and will have more longevity. so um, i will have the further conversation. i just wanted to put it out there first. um, so, so really what i first put out is just a cleanup is, is you know, as to what we're calling ourselves. and, um, so i will reach out, but i first wanted to reach out to see if there was even an interest. um, right now. so, as you can imagine, the focus was really just on budget, so i didn't want to disturb it. so we've had conversations i haven't formally asked or um, but i wanted to find someone who was sort of switzerland to get everyone together, and that was the main purpose. yeah yeah. thank you. good question. so if i might, i was just going to go through section by section and if there

are no particular objections, we will just make it as a list of a recommendation. and then for those things that we might be more stuck on, we might just, um , kind of have all of the particular recommendations that we think should be considered by the legislative sponsor or sponsor, and then the city attorney. and that way we can try to get through, um, by 5:00. um, so i have a question. um, you mentioned a list of recommendations. so so, but what i'm seeing here are red lines of different documents that have been provided. so are what we are doing now. are you creating? are you creating a new document that's going to be a red line or literally providing a list of our recommendations? i will do both, depending on what's recommended by the city attorney, but what was helpful when shopping for a legislative sponsor was to say you know, these are the main things we first need to clean things up.

and what has been on our agenda forever and a day is kind of, um, focusing and limiting what law enforcement agency looks like because that has impact on the hiring of our staffing for our office of inspector general. and so those were the two main things i didn't want to say. do you want to be a legislative sponsor without anything? so part of it was the document that you see that i had created was mainly more of a cleanup to have consistent language, um, and consistent reference to acronyms. and so part of my, i guess, idiosyncratic thing is i don't have articles before an acronym. if it refers to an entity, but for an individual, i do so. and so you made mainly drafting. yeah. suggestions. so that was just the basics, but that they could reject the entire thing. i just i didn't want to just go in there without them having an idea of what was going to be there. um, and then the city attorney works with the legislative sponsor or sponsors. um, i cannot be a part of it

unless the legislative sponsor or sponsors want me to be a part of it. so there are conversations, um, although when i approached this, this office, um, they said, you know, we would welcome your help. so that's where we also, um, you know, are part of the process. and if we need to, you know, we could have a special meeting in between as the process goes on to, to further deliberate question. so the, um, that you had a i know michael had his recommendations, you had your recommendations and jason, would it be like a hodgepodge of all those recommendations and then, um, carry on. and then also from the inspector general, we had some suggestions. so i have those in my brain. and that's why, um, but i couldn't discuss it with any of you because we have to have a public meeting and so that's where i'm going to bring you through and where we get to certain points where there are different, um, um, suggestions. i will point that out and then we can comment on on that. does that sound right?

sound clear to you? yeah. so the just my one suggestion would be if, if it's going to be if they are going to be recommendations of the board, then the board, you know, you should vote on each recommendation. or if you have a collection of them you can it doesn't have to be each individual line, but just be real clear. what recommends you're thinking. if we just have a general consensus, do you think we still have to take a vote? yeah okay okay. we'll do that. okay. so the first item is what do we even call ourselves? um, so it's no longer the department, right. so it's not really the sheriff's department oversight board. um, i. thought about and i think i, um, threw this out there. the board of sheriff oversight only to distinguish ourselves from being an independent board, because even the sheriff's department oversight board sounds like we might be under the sheriff's office or sheriff's department. so i also thought about paralleling the police department of accountability. but then if we had the board of

sheriff's accountability, then that's the same acronym as the, uh, boy scouts of america. and then i wanted to avoid sob, which would have been the sheriff's oversight board. so um, so by default, i ended up with the, um, with bso. that sounds good. board of sheriff oversight. and so that kind of just culminates. i mean, even though the sheriff is generally singular here, i'm just using it kind of like police. so. okay, we're good with bso. so do we need to vote? shall we take a vote on that. it what i mean, it's up to you how you proceed. but yeah, you can vote on each one at a time or you can vote as a clump of them together. i just want to make sure it's clear what you're voting on. okay. that makes sense. um, why don't we just go one at a time, just to make it clear so we don't go back, and then we have to reiterate everything. and let me just share for the record, for me personally, i'm i'm against this. and the reason i am is just kind of the process in terms of what i'm hearing and

just kind of how i'm feeling. okay. uh, especially around the fact that there's a lot of work that's been done that's been great work by all of you here. that if we don't get a sponsor, we get a sponsor, and it doesn't take that all the work was really for not so i just think for me, from a process standpoint, i would have loved to feel more comfortable saying, we have someone that wants to sponsor this. there have been conversations that have been had and this is what we're going to propose versus i kind of feel like it's a little cart before the horse for me. okay um, so we still have to have the conversation as a board. so do we for sure. i mean, so just to actually just lay these things out. yeah. okay so to put that out. yeah. so do you. so do we want to go item by item and just say is there a motion to call ourselves the board of sheriff oversight? i personally don't want to go through item by item. i think that's a waste of time. i think we should just make the list. make a list right. um, okay. and then go from there. okay. so okay, we'll talk it

through. and then if there's any particular flags, we'll feel strongly. okay um, okay. so then we went back and so looked at the board seats and i know from member nguyen there was a flag that one of the seats be from a labor organization. but to emphasize it's a labor organization represents law enforcement center. uh, email to update just to keep the original language. so to disregard my proposal change. oh, okay. i didn't get that last one. okay. sorry. oh, okay. okay. i tried to just. yeah. yeah. so sorry. i don't even look at emails right before the meeting, so. okay. but that's better. anyway yeah. okay. it's better. it's happening here because i thought that might have been probably. okay. um so then we next go to training, and we know that it was actually difficult to actually get training and onboarding in particular time. so um, there was a little change on that for 180 days and 20 hours was, i think, um, the training is cost money and it's

staff and time consuming. um, who good rain here. um, so, so, um, i purposely actually tried to integrate training. i mean, with the presentations we have here. so if people don't feel strongly or feel strongly, just throw out whatever you want in terms of training. looks great. sorry question. we're looking at the february 20th. yeah. and then the other documents from member wechter as well as member nguyen. well, i thought, do you have that member quinn said, no. oh no. we're looking at training though. and member wechter had his suggestions on training, which is not identical to so that is um, and i think in the future we just need to label. but this is with the, um, the from the firefox with the red. yeah. i think since we're all looking at three different documents, there is a proposed amendments, which is president sue's. we have the red line, which is commissioner nguyen, and then we have. no, that's

what that's what vectors red line. yeah okay. and then the other one that's um, some cross but with blue would be from member nguyen i see. okay. great perfect. you know, one other thing you could do is you could agree as a board. i'm just throwing out suggestions. um because it's 430 that you submit all of your, you know, each red line and identified as whoever suggestion suggested them. and then the sponsor could, could consider all of them. and that's another possibility. i mean, i think we're, i, we don't have a lot. so i think that we can get through this. and so i just wanted to throw it out and just philosophically, i like to be a little bit more general than, um, specific. but sometimes the more you put in, the more limiting you end up being so. and sometimes the small changes you can take out a word and it could, um, make, make all the change without having to add extra language. so instead of so just to understand the meat of

this proposal, it's like taking instead of 90, we're doubling the hours of training for 100. no no we're extending the days because it wasn't practical to actually have someone onboarded and then get training within the 90 days. um, and then we realistically just put the 20 hours, i think it was originally there was a proposal to have 80 hours, and it would be phased in during an entire year. no. and so i think with i don't know how you felt, but the 20 hours was a good foundation for us. yeah, yeah. it was a great training. um, and i didn't specify who was going to do the training. when someone says experts in the field that could be subjective. so i left that kind of clean. um so then moving on, um, it's just a little bit of cleanup on the, um, the terminology, but also now we're looking at our powers and duties. uh, member wechter wanted to have x unfettered access to information and records and, um, that concerns me a little bit because, um, i

view our board as quasi judicial and just as, uh, the presentation that that, um, marshall kane was going to give, we don't want to have information that may accidentally, um, reveal confidential information. and i think the investigations are best left with the office of inspector general. and if we do want additional information, we should actually go through the inspector general. that makes sense. sorry, i'm like, what page are we on? yeah, i think it may be helpful if we, um, reference the page. yeah. so at least the section. okay. so yeah . so we're under um, be the best powers and duties. yes so yes. so if you, if you follow that section. um, okay. got it, got it. so what i see is a lot more just cleanup. it's just, uh, drafting cleanup. yes, yes. um,

and then in following that, we go on in and then we have the office of inspector general. so that's just cleanup. and i apologize. i'm trying to catch more where i had a typo of boss instead of bso, so next we go to the oig. powers and duties. and so this in particular is where vice president karen waite weighed in. but it's also about reviewing things that are in custody. and so we know that the job of the deputies has been expanded with tenderloin. so we're out in patrol. so um, i thought about just in a more broad sense, rather than saying we're going to look at, um, injuries or deaths based on shootings or where we are, um, i'm thinking about the terminology sfso related death or injury. and that way it's a little bit more broad. i didn't want to say sfso. so um,

involved because we could have a situation like we've had in the past where it's a facility or a building that the sheriff's office, um, uh, keeps as under their protections, such as general hospital. and if there's , say, a particular fight or somebody's missing and there's an injury or a death, it is sfso related. but it's not sfso involved. so i thought that that might be broad enough to encompass everything where we didn't have to specifically spell out whether it's in custody, out of custody. um, yeah. i think my comment, though is, um, officer involved shootings don't always involve deaths and injuries. right. so i don't think it should just be tied to deaths and injuries. that's why i said officer. or it would be deputy deputy. shoot. yeah. shoot. okay. deputy involved shootings excessive. so we should have a separate thing just to mention shooting and i don't know. and marshall, maybe you could help me or, um, member bruckner in general or all the

or. janet. are all the shootings just pro forma investigated by the oversight body? so like, that's the police commission. they i think they look at every shooting. so yes. so the inspector general would look at every shooting. so do we need to even spell it out. well right now what it doesn't provide the it doesn't provide authority for that. yeah. yeah. so i think i think we should spell out the shooting. um okay. and that would be under, um, two or. yeah. um, sub division e two. yeah. and then and then are people okay with the other otherwise like taking out the in custody and talking about sfso related death or injury. yes okay. okay and then moving on. that's a that's more clean up.

um. oh no. one really important thing is so the authority for the oig to look at, um, complaints between sfso employees or between sfso employees and sfso contractors. so that's a labor issue that, um , our deputy city attorney brought up. so maybe we need to reword that or look at particular jurisdiction on that. was that was under e one. yeah. my, uh, recommendation is that you don't include complaints between, you know, employees basically that employees cheese and other employees and employees and contractors. so that falls under dr. and the city attorney's office. it it falls under drs jurisdiction now. okay um, so it's on under e the way the language read, receive, review and investigate complaints against sfpd employees and sfpd contractors. and then it's comma and then

what was proposed is between sfo employees or between sfo employees and contractors. it's that language that okay, so we take out that entire clause between, um, okay. now is there an instance where a internal affairs actually looks at some of the things, or is it automatically referred to dr. um , i'm not really sure. i think i think they do, but, um, you know, complaints between employees. chief jude does internal affairs look at those. sorry to put you on the spot. sorry, sorry. um, so we're going to take out the clause of complaints between sfso employees or between sfso employees and contract sfso contractors. um, because that's usually handled by dr. but my question is it's likely to go

through internal affairs or at least that you would know about it. right? we would know about it. um, so are you talking about the shootings. is that what you're. no, no, we're just talking about just complaints between employees and then complaints between employees and contractors. we had added that as expanding the jurisdiction for the oig powers and duties. um, but we were recommended that maybe we take that out. so sorry, because it goes through dr. and we don't want conflicting, um, resolutions. i also think it's a human resource issue. um, i don't believe that that we have legal here to legal. yes alrighty. sorry that. yeah so that i can speak to that specifically. it's on a case by case basis. if it has a ciu element and there's a criminal investigation, then it will be handled by them. if it's an eeo complaint, it will be handled by ia. dr. and our internal office. and if it is an administrative

issue it could not rise to the level of ia. it's a case by case basis. so there can't be any general rule. so we will take that out. so it's safer to be silent on that. thank you. thank you. sorry to put you on the spot. um yeah. i'm not on the labor team, which is. yeah yeah. so. so, um. yeah. so just to be clear, janet has a lot of layers. so even when things go to her with their government team, they also refer to the other teams like labor. and so, yeah. okay. so, um, other than that, that's clean up. um, we've added, uh, what member wechter had raised to have, um, audit reports. uh, we're not specifying who actually conducts the audits, but there are professional certified auditors, so i don't want to say that we're going to get statistical reports and audit reports and it's somebody just throwing it together. i mean, i hope that we have the properly credentialed people to make sure that the reports actually are meaningful. who gets audited in this with this line? um, it's so the inspector, the office of inspector general would be

auditing the sheriff's operations and numbers. and then so, um, it's putting it in there. where where they're looking for an audit and then kind of risk management. so so, uh, one thing we talk about is if we do things, it's hard to show what we prevented, but if we prevent even a single lawsuit , we've paid for our department, you know, so that's the main thing. and we saw an employment lawsuit that was recently rendered, um, a few months ago, and that was like $1 million for the plaintiffs. so i would like to make a oh, go ahead. sorry question. um, does this open up the door because i don't know what the office of inspector general staff requirements are. does this does this line like, require us to, like, make sure we have staffing appropriate for that? yeah. everything i mean there's a there's a catchall at the end that it's subject to budget and resources. so there's a catchall at the end of this charter anyway. yeah. okay i also think the language should

be a little bit more clear and say submit an audit report of the sheriff's activities or, you know, to the sheriff and boss. so that's clear. so, so or should we say operations. yeah, exactly. operations. so we'll just do or so operations. this one i want to think a little bit longer on just because i, i'm trying to understand, um, if, if it just opens up a can of worms to staff for it and then require like, uh, i mean, i do understand the importance of it because, you know, i want to make sure that we're not doing anything unlawful and then adds to, like, legal. um, but so which section are you talking about? it's the language in that

i added item number seven under e oig powers and duties. so it's the added item seven. i just mean which draft are you on? i'm sorry. oh, sorry. it's the draft , uh, with my initials on it. so february 20th. yeah. dated and actually, this is really february 6th. i on the 20th. i just tried to catch all the corrections for bso instead of boss, but it didn't even in this. so and you know, i think that for me, i don't mind even tabling this because the first report is from 2026. so we don't need to make that dis decision about the audit report right now. the only reason i can see some concerns of like, what's the purpose of the audit report, what is the audit report going to be consist of? how is it going to be used? because i'm not trying to give the ig to have to do more work. we could actually request it outside of the charter. we can just say we need. and i just, you know, member wechter was pushing it and i actually have it on the timeline anyway, what we're going to discuss later in the

fall. yes. so we don't need to we could eliminate it if you want and not even make it a recommendation. i agree, i would agree with that for this purpose. okay. but there's no just in terms of, uh, member margo's question, there's no legal reason why you couldn't require that. i mean, just. yeah, just to follow it. just i just you can also do it the way you've described, which is probably better, but i just wanted to write it. it just kind of confounds things. if we're placing this before the voters, if they see too many changes, they might even vote everything down. i mean, there's a lot of moving balls, so i think in general, sometimes just getting a cleanup is easier because we've got a lot of cleanups on the ballot. um so those were the, the main things i let's see g just was cleanup to fix. um, the reference to the sheriff's office and also with requesting, um, the records, i was just kind of concerned. so i just put in hipaa and other privacy. yeah. which is a lot, you know, just

so you know, on that section g, it says at the beginning, unless prohibited by state or federal law, that that includes that pulls in, uh, hipaa and the california privacy act. all right. so i don't know, i just, um, only because i didn't it didn't like, flash out at me. i was just a little nervous. so i added it. but i could just take out that. yeah it's not necessary. okay. we'll take out the hipaa. okay. so you're withdrawing your own comment okay. yeah. yeah. i just but i just want to make sure um, because was this also included member webster wanting to have our board or individual members access to records like that. and so i just wanted to flag all the privacy stuff. but we can take out the take out the hipaa. okay so we're an h now. uh, yes. so we're just about done really. and we may have marshall present after all. i have a question. yes. one for every 100 sworn sf employees. oh, that was another

big. yep. sorry. thank you for bringing that up. wait, what was your question? i didn't hear i don't i need to i just want to understand what it is like. why do we need to spell it out? for every 100 sworn employees as a employees or for every 200 incarcerated individuals, based on a three year average, which is greater? which ever is greater? what's the need for that? so under the original language we remember we had one one, um, investigator for every 100 sworn officers. but now we have an incarcerated population that has grown by 50. so you could argue that there could be more complaints because there's an increase in the population. so i didn't want to limit it to just one investigator per 100. um. per per 100, um, incarcerated is the intent to increase the budget as necessary if like, yeah, yeah. so increase

the number of investigators. so let's say the population grew by 50. so we ended up with a certain percentage of, um, complaints. and whether they're difficult complaints or whatever . just when you get a larger population, you would expect more complaints. so with the budget. so i want to have some flexibility in terms of the inspector general being able to hire, whether it be by contract or staff, to have investigators. okay so the only other thing, i mean, the second part of that line, the san francisco sheriff's office or san francisco police department, as a sworn law enforcement officer, i do have an issue with this because it's it just only specifies sf. um, officer or law enforcement, but that opens the gate for other agencies, nearby agencies, does it not? yeah. so i, i didn't broaden it. i think, um, i was just looking at something really, really narrow, like if a voter were to vote, it's just really. well, why not

just why not take out san francisco and just say, sheriff's office or police department as a sworn law? yeah, we could just do that too. okay and then that labor organization was always there. then can i, um, just going back to that comment. so that means, though, if our ig has a, you know, knows of retired and alameda investigators, right, then they wouldn't be able to apply here because they were previously worked for the police or they previously worked for the sheriff. right? yeah. okay yeah. i thought we were all in favor of, um, like or we had the same consensus of allowing law enforcement to apply for these positions because they have a background in investigating and they're. good. yeah, that's what i thought we had previously discussed. so this language to me seems a little different than what we had talked about. so we had narrowed it down to what were we thinking. like what what

a voter think automatically about law enforcement agency. because we had remember we had just throw the law enforcement agency was so broad that it eliminated people who worked for the federal office of inspector general, um district attorney's offices, even investigators who worked in the district attorney's. so we were we were just like throwing out good candidates. so this is an attempt to narrow it. and i, you know, however you want to narrow it, not narrow it, but define it or define it, but it also it also narrows the people that we potential candidates. because when you just say law enforcement agency, you would have eliminated so many people. so you're narrowing the definition down, so to speak. i was speaking in reverse. and yeah, like i know mining it for a reason. yes. in the charter. so this is saying, um, to not allow we want to allow. right. no no we're not. so, so, um, we're, we're eliminating people. well i mean, okay, so law enforcement agency, we can agree was very, very broad. so now the people that we would say can not

apply, you're focusing on agencies, right? yeah. just sheriff and sfpd and the typical layman would understand it as like law enforcement. right, right. deputies and the police officers. and then the question is, do we just say, san francisco? because there is a direct conflict, right. um, but i mean, even even if you hired someone from another jurisdiction, there could be a conflict that they knew someone. that's where legal comes in and says, you can't handle this case or whatever. so, um, you know, we're not addressing every single little thing. we're just trying to make sure that we're not boxing ourselves in again where we can't hire the best candidates. so scenario. so if there's a candidate that was 30 years in law enforcement, he retired from daly city pd, for example, and then he applied for one of these positions. he wouldn't be allowed. correct. um, if we if we took out the san francisco reference, then that that person would probably be excluded. if we if we took out

san francisco, because then it would be any kind of, um, sheriff's office. or if you beat cisco, then he is allowed to be. yeah. to be interviewed at least . yeah. right. to be considered. that's good. right there. so i, i see so there's a san francisco , the san francisco then adding san francisco is a way to have a checks and balances that there's not an actual conflict of interest that somebody worked in san francisco, that knows anyone. right. but then i think the concern that other board members have previously raised is that no one that should be in law enforcement should have previous law enforcement experience. you know, it's hard to become an investigator that knows how to do this work without working in a police or sheriff so that that is just the reason i just look at michelle phillips, who's come here, and i mean, she's been there two years, done amazing things. she was a deputy sheriff. she was a probation officer. she comes from baltimore. so i personally,

i never want to exclude somebody just based on their title or whatever. i mean, we all bring different experiences and that's what makes our board strong. so so, um, you know, i don't presume that the vice president is like, so pro law enforcement because she's, you know, been a prosecutor before. um, she has her prosecuted officers. yes to say, right, right. there's a difference. but i mean, there's a balanced viewpoint. and so she's also not you know, she's also not anti, um, law enforcement because of the roles that she's played as a prosecutor. so i just want to make sure that we were not excluding candace with really solid experience. i also think in terms of credibility, um, for policy changes. um, we also are a very union town and, you know, member nguyen represents, um, um, labor organizations. and so we have to really be mindful of things that we recommend that there actually workable and acceptable. so that's where i

kind of just made it a little bit more narrow so that we could look at other people. but i mean, even then legal would get involved if somebody came from a jurisdiction. i mean, even if someone came from the east coast, they may know somebody. we have you know, we have long time captains who originally came from the east coast. so there could still be a conflict. and that is up for legal to say, you know, you can't investigate this case because you know, this person. i mean, that's very basic for attorneys to just create firewalls and that kind of thing. yeah, yeah. i think my only thing is like, you know, this was voted in by the public like majority votes and the spirit in which this was written was that no law enforcement officer as a typical layman would understand, would be leading this, uh, board or doing the investigation. so this is just like, no, no, but remember, the original language was law enforcement agency, not officer. so here we're defining it. so why not leave it broad and how

it was written then? because law enforcement agency would exclude people from the district attorney's office, a federal office of inspector general, any inspector general, i couldn't, you know, so got it. so which which is why we're here to define it. i'm okay with this definition. if we take out the san francisco part. okay so i have like a mixed feeling about that because i think the san francisco part is meant to be like a okay, we don't want somebody who's going to, you know, like a code blue, right? like they're just going to go and side with law enforcement because they know that person. they're affiliated with. my concern is getting qualified investigators to be able to do this work, because how else do you become an investigator to do crime? i mean, it's where do you get your training? where do you work on that? so it's i agree with the small pool that we have

to work with. i agree, i totally in agreement with that, but we just hired the inspector general, right. that came from a dea background. and i'm, you know, i'm it's we had to pick from the pool that we had, the limited pool that we had. i still think very strongly that we should just keep to the sheriff's office and the law enforcement office. officer language, or the sheriff and the police, you mean. yeah. yeah, yeah, i see, um, and so we are kind of expanding the pool by narrowing what we mean by law enforcement agency. i mean, that's, um, i will i will say that, you know, where i work. we had predominantly sworn officers as our investigators and about 15 years or so, we started moving towards civilian investigators. but and we have a good combination. yeah. i mean, i'm in agreement. listen, i mean, going through so we're told we have four minutes. although that clock says six minutes, you have four minutes on my phone, which i think is i trust our commission secretary.

um, so i will note so, so take out san francisco and leave it as, um, not previously employed by a, a sheriff's office or as a sworn officer, as a sworn sheriff's office or a, uh, police or a police department as a sworn law enforcement officer. so we'll take out san francisco references. i mean, i, i think it's important that we do have sanford. i see now the point of the adding the san francisco of allowing us to be able to have a larger pool of investigators that may not be affiliated with san francisco, that have been trained, um, because we don't want it to be like the like, old boys network of, you know what i mean? like that. that's kind of what we're trying to ensure is that that doesn't happen. i am concerned about getting investigators with, like, the experience that we need to actually do a proper investigation, because if you get investigators that don't

know what they're doing. yeah, it's a wrap. totally. you know, i get that. i guess what i'm concerned about is the public perception and the reason in which this board was created is that there is a mistrust with. so. so i thought that seeing san francisco right up front, it actually would allay their fears that you're having that fox guard the henhouse. so i mean, it could go i mean, what we could do is just say that we are conflicted on whether or not to have san francisco in there and then just leave it for the legislative sponsor. can i ask the question? actually, this actually brings me to a good point. um, so let's say we propose this. we give it to the sponsor, or are they allowed to make changes like even changes? yeah, they can change it. they can throw everything out. they can exclude us. they can whatever. yeah. yeah. so and then and then even when all the work is done, the voters can say we don't like any of it. and they're going to vote it down. so we could do all this work. but what i'm trying to do is make it lay out the groundwork for future generations of our board. so and the inspector

general's office, so we can do a better job. that's all. i think. you know, i think a compromise to this situation, given that we are just a recommending body, is that we say there is a difference of opinions, you know, one, uh, no, that's what i just said. we're going to lay it out and just say we're conflicting. we have a difference of opinion, or we're conflicted on how we. how about you? you let me finish. um, what i was going to say was that, similarly, we put the state of y right? for example, yours is the original intent. right? the what? you think the original intent was to exclude all persons. right. but another side is that san francisco is a sufficient check and balances to ensure the fox henhouse thing. so i think we might want to specify, though, what that right. i mean, i think with all the list of recommendations, i'm also going to put a rationale and that may be part of when you read the stuff in the ballot. it also would lend itself to

legislative history when people, you know, ten years from now, like, why in the hell did they put that in language in there? we will have the documentation. i mean, you know, legislation is always evolving anyway, could i just suggest you just take a pause and offer the general public comment item because you have to do that. yes. okay so are you are you okay with that? just that we're ending it here and then we're going to. okay. um, so let's move on to we would need to take a motion though, right? yeah. no, you have to vote. definitely but i just meant, like, just because i'm worried that if you get cut off. okay, let's just take some general public comment first, and then we'll do a recalling line item nine, general public comment. at this time, the public is welcome to address the board for up to two minutes on items that did not appear on this afternoon's agenda, but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the sheriff's department oversight board. during public comment, neither sheriff personnel nor any board members are required to respond to questions by the public, but may provide a brief response. if you would like to make a public

comment, please approach the podium when it is free. there appears to be no public comment. okay so let's, um, take do i have a motion? let's take a vote on, uh, what we just discussed and having it as a list of recommendations and the various drafts that we have as, as recommendations in the hands of our city attorney to present to the legislative or i guess the city attorney's not presenting, but to provide to the legislative sponsor. it would be that your, you know, you would compile it and your secretary would would send it to whoever the sponsor is. or you could designate a some a member of the board to do that. if you wanted to do. i would suggest that we just do a quick summary of what are the list of the recommendations that we're going to put on. so it's very clear. right. and i can do the summary myself if you don't want to. oh no. no, i mean i took a list of

the summary but the legislative sponsor potential one does have just the cleanups, the main cleanups. right but for in order for us to just make sure that we're all voting on the same page, why don't we just quickly say all right, there are going to be technical cleanups, which are the recommendations, right? we are agreeing to all the sections a to do this, this, this, this, which is only for things substantively. yes right. so that's that's so that's what i had down in my notes. so, so um, so when i summarize that, i don't know, i think i will send it to dan jana, i don't, um, is it okay if i send it to dan and then everyone looks at it and then i guess we're voting now, but i just want the final document to reflect. if you're going to vote, it should be clear what you're voting on. yes. okay. i wrote it down. so we're going to vote. we have so what we went through on the technical cleanups, the line items that we had and that will be the list of recommendations that will go through, dan, to the legislative sponsor. those

changes are to be, uh, changed the name to be. so 20 hours at 180 days on section a, five, uh, on section e two to add deputy involved shootings, remove the suggestion on e one and remove the section on e seven. remove the section on g hipaa and h um to take out san francisco or leave for the legislative sponsor to decide. uh, we're missing something. so we're missing, um, we're missing the where's the thing? um, the portions that are in custody were are going to have sfso related, uh, death and injury. so because there's a reference right now just to in custody, and i believe the recommendation is not just to take out san francisco, it's just that we have a yeah, a difference of opinion. right. it's to just put

it out there and there's two different rationales for it. yeah and the rationale and they are as you described, i just want to make sure it's clear what you're voting for. right. yes okay. well i'll move to um approve those recommendations. and i would also, uh, as part of that motion request that the president be designated as the person to incorporate these, um, provided to dan and to jana, our city attorney. yeah and i'll just hold him until if and when you have a sponsor for is, i guess will be the process next week. and then i will, um, at member, um, brooke suggestion, i will also circle with back with them. all right. is there a second supervisor walton. second. for members of the public who would like to make public comment on line item six

amendment to the san francisco 4.137 language, please approach the podium when it is free. there appears to be no public comment calling the role on the motion to accept the amendment to sf charter for 4.137. language member huamango. um, i'm going to say no, and i'm going to give my rationale for it. it's because of the potential for the charter to be amended when it goes into the supervisors hands. and i'm just like, worried that something will get passed through, go to the public that i wasn't comfortable with. like if this is the original, if all these changes that we're agreeing upon stays all the way up until it gets to the public, i'm fine with that. but if it's not, then i'm going to have to say no. well, i think the public will still have the final say, like on the changes. they still have to vote for it to get through. so but the majority of the public wants it and that's what they want, right? i can't hear

you. member. when i'm sorry. so just. oh, sorry. it's not speaking in the mic. um, but yeah, i was, i was saying, um, with the changes, it still has to go to the public at the end of the day to get, get voted in. so the public will have to make the final decision. so so we could submit our suggestions, but it's, uh, you know, what the public wants is what the public wants. and they could vote on it or not. so and the sponsor. yeah. and the sponsor. yeah. we can't control we all. we can only recommend. yeah all right. member bruckner. no bruckner is no vice president carrion. yes carrion is. yes. member nguyen. yes. when is. yes. president su? yes. su is. yes. there's no quorum. if three is that. yeah so it doesn't pass. so we need a supermajority on the charter recommendation. you always need four for any action. you want to

take. it's not the majority of people sitting here. it's the majority of the members. so i guess, um, down the road, do we want to take this up next month at all? do we even want to do this at all? i mean, yes, i was recommend that we really kind of figure out our legislative, um, sponsor. i think that. it behooves us to show the respect to the originating, um, sponsor. right if i wrote a book. yeah. and you had an opportunity to speak to that book writer. yeah. just to get as we're talking about original intent and other things, right? yes i think it's just in the spirit of collaboration. i agree, i think, and then we can revisit this because we will have time to and i would feel more comfortable if whoever the sponsor is continues to keep that same language that we all just spoke about. right, right. but i just i just wanted to i think as i was reading what you were saying, though, the voters could just also reject it . and then we're left with our old language where we, you know, the inspector general is going

to have a harder time recruiting and staffing. that's that's the main thing. it is it is true. but we also have already previously done a motion to define law enforcement agencies for the purpose of the ig. exactly. for just police and sheriff. right. so if that happens, you know, i, i do think we have time. right. and also you can always. yeah. and you can always invite it has to be by mid-may. so i mean if we if we would like we could have an extra meeting. the legislative sponsor has to get everything packaged by mid-may. yes. so that means they have to get it through their committee and their board of supervisors meeting. so it's not like a lot, a lot of time. and so i wanted to do you think it would i'm sorry. go ahead. i just wanted to i just wanted to float out there and make it easy. and that's why i just had particular documents. because one. yeah. so so when it's not, things are not packaged easily, then they're like, i don't really want to do it because it's more work. and then we're we're stuck in budget time. so i was only doing this mainly also to buttress the need

to actually staff our office and having done all the work that everyone one associated is very serious. we're all committed and that's why we're also fighting for the budget. so this lends to everything. so i will go and talk to, uh, go back to the legislative sponsors, plural and , and get a firm commitment and hopefully i'll have that by the end of the week. um, it would be also interesting to hear from their perspective what their thoughts are on this particular, um, issue of the law enforcement agency. yeah when those conversations, sometimes people don't understand the unintended consequences, like they had the positive thing. but in practical motion, you realize that we need to amend this because it actually was hamstrung us from actually doing our work. i think that people are more amenable, but i also understand the budget, too, and i didn't want to disrupt the budget process. so it's a lot going on right now. yeah. um, and thank you for doing all of this work also. and

whoever the sponsors is can watch your meeting because i recorded it and read all of the drafts because they're attachments. so you might invite them to do that. yeah. i had asked them to either if they wanted to appear or watch it in real time. so yeah. okay. having no quorum of votes, the motion does not pass. and is not adopted. calling line item ten adjournment action item. all those in favor? aye. any nays? meeting is adjourned. at 5:09 p.m. all right television.

>> a lot of housing advocates to speak out again poison pills that president peskin my name is jay the san francisco oregon director for mba action and from the action coalition owe a lot of housing advocates as well as some of our elected leaders joining us to push back against this i want to briefly just mention this is not unfortunately, the first thing by the had to get to the with president peskin this is not his first anti housing action a long list recently, i time to highlight some of the recent ac