the board requires sfpd of the provide transparency regarding sfpd's involvement in collaboration with private agencies involved in surveillance and possible actions with political and religious organizations. hrc and the police commission will hold a hearing to require disclosure of information concerning their own or joint national security or anti- terrorism programs. we will have a real dialogue about this issue. we have had numerous meetings in collaboration with asian law caucus and the aclu on recommendations regarding civilian oversight of the law localjttf. the joint venture will combat possible acts of terrorism. it is memorialized in the memorandum of understanding between the parties. the issue of these joint terrorism task forces and their implication on civil-rights is a topic of discussion in many u.s. cities going on right now in portland and in oakland. you may have read the recent "chronicle "sports article -- " chronicle" article as well. a serious terrorism threat was uncovered after a city council resolution a few weeks ago. portland is the only incident of a local

so,ed good news is, after our meetings at the sfpd we know that we all collectively agree that sfpd policies should apply to sfpd officers assigned to the joint terrorism stass force -- task force. the bad news is that the recently released m.o.u. which was secret for four years doesn't reflect our collective desires. further, based on our separate meet wgs the f.b.i., we know now that the f.b.i. will not agree to amend the m.o.u. which is why the chief issued the bureau order. however, a significant problem is that the f.b.i. special agent in charge has told us all in separate meetings that the f.b.i. will continue to block key parts of local policy central to accountability and oversight. this is what this is about. but more than that there's a solution and it doesn't necessitate a divorce from the joint terrorism task force. there are now two ways for local law phone ersment to participate in the jttf. this is -- this has been a chance even since the last time we spoke before the commission. one of the ways is the ways we're currently engaged. an m.o.u. in which sfpd resources are put int

under sfpd rules and regularlations. but to protect the sfpd from highly criticized f.b.i. practices that amount to indiscriminant intelligence gathering and racial and religious profiling, sfpd officers must be bound by this which the f.b.i. special agent in charge sig blocked significant portions of. unlike the f.b.i., the sfpd is not a national security organization. this is thankfully still a local public safety, crime-fighting agency operating appropriate standards designed to serve that mission. there has been no public discussion by any governing body of transforming the sfpd into a national security organization. dd when the sfpd signed up to work with the joint terrorism task force under an m.o.u. that preserves local control and policies, it wasn't assuming that some of its officers, paid for by san francisco taxpayers, could be transformed into national security agents. the sfpd signed on without telling anyone, not even the police commission. let me emphasize that this secret m.o.u. does not just allow sfpd o

came to the sfpd with a new standard m.o.u. and perhaps inadvertently, there was no review by the city attorney, no notice to the police commission, the sfpd signed that m.o.u. and it's a drastically different m.o.u., unfortunately. now, we didn't know about that m.o.u. because it was kept secret at the instistence of the f.b.i. for four years. and we appreciate when we met with them recently the f.b.i. took responsibility for that secrecy. week of been operating in this town for 20 years with an atmosphere of open discussion and open grappling with what sometimes are difficult issues that sometimes people disagree about. but when we met with the police department in 2010 we were told suddenly the police department couldn't even talk about these issues without the permission of the f.b.i. that set off a warning sign. there's a truism in police practices that openness, particularly on issues related to controversial tactics, openness breeds trust. openness breeds confidence. it is necessary for collaborative problem solving. unn

that's the reason why we asked the officers to identify themselves as sfpd, where then the ordinary complaint process that all officers are subject to would kick in. commissioner chan: that brings me to section 6-a of the m.o.u. wherein it states that jttf members are strictly for biden from disclosing any classified information -- forbidden from disclosing any classified information. my concern here is that what would the -- or do you have in mind a framework or an approach if a case arices wherein an officer -- arises wherein an officer, in order to defend himself against an allegation of misconduct, or a citizen skeeking -- seeking to discover facts and other evidence relating to an incident bumps up against this need to know and the fact that apparently the jttf activities are, quote, under a federal classified information. do you have a plan that would enable the securing of a security clearance, for example, of the head of the o.c.c. or other complaint personnel in order to do their job in such a case? >> i don't -- it's not my province to pass out security clearances but i can certainl

i also respect chief suhr and his effort to make sure there is no daylight between sfpd's obligations to being compliance with these important policies. >> rich -- with respect to the standards, the chart we presented to you we went over line by line with the fbi and said, is there anything here that is not accurate? they agreed it was accurate. they say we don't always apply those guidelines. we are more limited. what the guidelines say, the controlling documents, it is exactly, according to the agreement, what we showed you. she said, we want to retain our flexibility. >> i don't think it is beneficial to get into a long back and forth. police officers remain in the chain of command and are subject to policies and procedures. >> i have a question for perhaps you, president mazzucco, or chief suhr, people who have been working with this for a period of time. we are working under an ammo you and have been since 2002 -- an mou since 2002, rather than a resolution. what is your impression in terms of the distinction and the differences of the relationship that might exist between a reso

commissioner chan: my concern here is that the defense of participating sfpd members in the jttf appears largely as a matter of grace to the federal bureau of investigation or the attorney general of the united states. since it's discretionary rather than mandatory. they apparently on the m.o.u. have preserved that determination on case by case basis as it states there. has this section of the m.o.u. ever been reviewed by department council? >> i believe that the 8.10 g.o. was reviewed by department council as was the m.o.u. from 2002. i think that the most recent m.o.u., as has been discussed, there was somehow a mishap where it was not reviewed. commissioner chan: so at least the department hasn't been advised by its council as to what its liability exposure would be for members participating in jttf activities? >> well, again, if the officers are identifying themselves as san francisco police officers in every instance during course and scope of their duties, it would be no different than it is where they -- were they just on the streets of san francisco. commissioner chan: have any m

i have a lot of issues with the sfpd. i have been voicing them for 19 months in front of the commission. doing their jobs is not one of them. this city has a crime rate probably unmatched by any county or city in the country. you worry more about the ethnic community when a lot of the ethnic people in the community are worried about it themselves. it just so happens that a lot of crime in this city is coming from the ethnic community. the majority of them are not to blame. it is a very small percentage. you keep protecting them. we have murderers on the street. muggers are on the street. they are still on the street. i have seen the network. [tone] >> members, i am the director of open government. in 2008, i had the privilege and responsibility of being a field election deputy for the primary and general elections that were held here in san francisco. the areas in the precinct over which i had oversight were in the bayview hunters point area. the number one question i received from both members of the public and from my p

they have been doing these kind of events on the past, both southern station and the sfpd. we all know about it. to be honest, it is just catching them. commissioner meko: this probably is more relevant to the sfpd and fire marshal and it is to you. >> correct. commissioner meko: you do not have the tools to deal with them. >> correct. in the past, i will make a call to dispatch. commissioner meko: hanks. -- thanks. president newlin: public comment on the executive director's report. seeing none, will move to item four, police department comments and questions. >> good evening. i am steve matthias from central station. cinco de mayo was a good night in central. everything was pretty manageable. we had a few good events, but they all went well. we had no incidents or violence that i have come across at all. one of the establishments, club atmosphere, we learned there were having a live performance by a popular entertainer. we voiced are there -- we voice our concerns about overcrowding and making sure they could handle the line outside, and what their staffing levels were go

i don't want to make it like i am going off on the sfpd. i appreciate everything they have been doing. president mazzucco: think you, mr. harris. >> i filed a complaint against the san francisco police department. i alleged that over an extended period of time, the police department harassed me in an effort to get me to leave the city because i knew the identity of one of the confidential informants in the jackson street gang case. do you hear me? the occ ruled information only. they said the matters i brought up raised issues that were beyond the jurisdiction of the occ. the definition of "information only" is the actions described were not permitted by sworn member of the department or the story told is so unbelievable that it cannot be accepted by a competent authority. they also said, regarding the statement in the letter of finding, that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the occ. one of the investigators told me that the fbi [inaudible] the policemen that i named in the complaint was retired and therefore they did not have jurisdiction

i will report on this incident once we have a full report and the investigation from sfpd, and we are able to do a little more digging on our own. that is what i have. vice chair joseph: the karaoke at 870 caravel -- taravel is what cross street? >> i would not be able to tell you. vice chair joseph: is that the place we permitted price that was problematic? >> i believe so. we did not permit twice. we permitted once. vice chair joseph: we turned it down once and then permitted another time. so we do not know if this is 14th avenue or 19th avenue, or where it is? >> i think it is 19th. vice chair joseph: so this is the same place where there were bringing alcohol in and had all the violence. >> his current violation is for being open after hours. vice chair joseph: i just request that you monitor the place. >> we are absolutely monitoring them, and also working with sfpd. vice chair joseph: on the violence, the battery at the lookout, that is unusual. do you know anything about that? >> it was unusual. this is not a place with any history of violence or incidents in the past. we do ha

i know the sfpd cannot be the police there. we have an ombudsman, a lot of problems could be solved on the spot. i'm glad to see you are working on solutions and that there are recommendations, and you are willing to help. >> good evening. thank you for putting this on. i am the director of the fund that supports a 17 a-area memsa communities. there were earlier comments about the trust we should put in the u.s. attorney general. as a community member and someone who works with community members, i can tell you the actions the fbi have taken have eroded the trust. the men and women are supposed to protect us. instead, the community, community-base organizations as well as individuals, feel pro failed and -- profiled and surveillance. this will spread even more in terms of relations and perceptions of the sfpd. i encourage you to strongly consider the resolution options and burn our community's trust back. you can protect our civil rights and keep us safe. if you ignore the resolution option, you will be sending the community a

we have just had two african- americans being apprehended on the sfpd on various charges. part of the problem in the city is that the murder rate relates almost exclusively to african- americans, whether they came from other parts of the county, i do not know. but it is a problem. to have killers on the loose in the city and not being identified or have people committing crimes in the city and not being identified. i know on the "10 most wanted," on the tv show, they were will shocked at the number of people who identify criminals. i think for the small county, this city, this program would be worth between the tax community and -- the taxi community and the sfpd to identify criminals, many of whom use taxis to come and go as they wish on a regular basis. and one other thing to bring up, i think we should change the clearance back to what they are. get rid of this kind of useless language called clearance and put it back to murder an unsolved murder so the public can do that. i thank you for your time. president mazzucco: next speaker. anymore public comment? seeing none,

the number of officers that are working there, this is something we're confused about because the sfpd published in their annual report the number of officers as of just a few years ago. so in -- it's on the website still. in 2008 it was two officers. o.p.d. talks about it on the radio. they have one officer. i'm not sure why that's secret but it's an issue that the more openness, the more likely we can solve these issues. commissioner dejesus: the other question i have, i'm looking at the bureau order and i looked at the d.g.o. and i think one of the issues we had is there is no commission oversight, even though the commissioner is going to look at what's been done monthly, that commissioner doesn't have the clearance, if i understand this right. doesn't have the clearance and we'd only see a sanitized version of the events. i'm a little concerned if that's the way -- am i reading that correctly? >> yeah. the reason we did not go through the bureau general order was in the interest of time and also in acknowledgment that there seems to be openness to taking other suggestions on it. an

. -- bss pps note -- the sfpd tried to run me out of town. i know the directory of the occ was present. i am kind of wondering what i need to be to get clarification on the matter is starting to get a little fishy to me. president mazzucco: that was a federal case, correct? >> yes. president mazzucco: 70 to talk to the people of the fbi, and the number -- so you need to talk to the police -- to the fbi, and the number is -- and you need to talk to the d.c. circuit. you can continue to talk about this. -- you need to talk to the duty officer. >> my next step would be to go to the inspector general's office. this is a law enforcement organization, and they were involved in the case, so i am taking it one step at a time. president mazzucco: i agree. >> so what i would like to do his equivocation on the occ findings, and i gave you all the details prior to the meeting, so -- commissioner: we are aware of the germans issues and have dealt with them as best as we can. we have responded to them, and there is nothing else we can do at this time for h