tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 25, 2018 10:00am-11:01am PDT
it's monday morning, june 25. we're ready to go. we've got sfgovtv assisting us with today's broadcast. thank you, and i want to thank and recognize linda wong, who is our clerk today, recognizing that we ha've got sandy fewer my right. supervisor sheehy will be joining us tot at approximately 1:00. supervisor stefani and ronen are on my right. we've got a decent sized schedule. first some housekeeping. we're going to hear a few item today. first, the walking budget director will walk us through the technical adjustments. next, we will move onto unresolved policy issues that
we left last here. we're going to hear from public policy, public health, police department, judging on the time, we'll probably hear from the police partme aer lunch, and we will play that portion by ear. we will be talkiking votes on the cans today. reallocation votes will be taken on wednesday. so today, we're going to continue the work that we started last week. we intend to release or spending plan -- our spending plan in this chamber at 11:00. paper copies will be made available and we will as always post on-line on the budget website. this afternoon we will hear feedback on the spending plan from our colleagues. they will come into the chamber to share with us their initial
ideas which i think is important, all in the name of transparency. tomorrow there will be a revenue letter from the controller indicating any additional revenues identified and collected. we look forward to tomorrow. public comment will be heard first thing in the morning on wednesday, 10:00. you'll have an opportunity to comment on the b.l.a. cuts. please note that we will be hearing additional comments on spending priorities as well. i encourage any and all of my colleagues to join us either this afternoon or wednesday for public comment to give comments on the new spending plan, and madam clerk, i understand that we are going to be -- we're going to be calling items 1 and 2 together, and that we will also be taking public comment on items 1 and 2. so could you start the agenda by calling item 1 and 2 together. >> clerk: yes.
[agenda item read] [agenda item read] >> supervisor cohen: excellent. thank you. i'd like to recognize miss kelly kirkpatrick. >> good morning, committee members. kelly kirkpatrick. in reviewing the budget, both of the controller's office on the technical end, there are a myriad of errors, coding errors, project codes that need to be adjusted, one-time costs
that were accidently loaded as ongoing or vice versa. we have them outlined in the letter. the attached detailed sheet that outlines each of these changes is not with the letter at this time, but it will be submitted to you this afternoon electronically, and i believe it is the advice of the city attorney that you accept these, and perhaps we can wait until wednesday once the technical sheet has been provided to you for review and perhaps some other technical adjustments will be put to you at that time, as well. >> supervisor cohen: all right. do you want to walk us through the technical adjustments around 1:00? >> i'm happy to. would you like me to receipt the bullets? >> supervisor cohen: yes, just for the public. >> collecting entries in the public trust fund, correcting
position entries in the fire department, juvenile probation department and the public defenders office, appropriate cost centers in the department of technology, correcting work orders in the fire department and public utilities commission. accurately reflecting state grant revenue and expenditures in the juvenile probation department, completing a department of contracts in the department of public housing to the status of women, and moving expenditures and division authority between project divisions, project codes, authority codes and/or account codes in various departments. i'm also clarifying that the transfer of function letter had erroneously counted the f.t.e. of positions that we're moving between the city administrator's office and
department of technology for digital services? it's just a lining that the b.l.a. report had reflected in the budget system? and finally these technical adjustments amount to approximately $250,000 in costs that will be -- will draw upon the technical adjustment reserve that is budgeted to cover these costs. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. i appreciate that. all right. with that said, i want to call miss linda girl back from the department of technology. so just to recap, the department of technology has a $1.8 million that has been cut. $1.5 million is still allocated in the current budget, and you agreed to a $500,000 carry forward from last year. i wanted just to be courteous to you miss lainda. is there anything you wanted to share with us, any comments or
thoughts? >> good morning. >> supervisor cohen: good morning. >> i would just like to say about this project that it is complex, that there are many unknowns that we're trying to understand. i think one of the things that sometimes we lose sight of it what is the do nothing alternative, and what is the impact of doing nothing, and i think what's important to understand is that there are many cities, all the cities, large cities in the country that are moving forward with a strategy around broad band, and we lose potentially the opportunity to be part of those capital investments and to have a solution that will be leading edge and will consider the city's needs. sometimes being late to develop a strategy or policy can mean that the industry takes a certain approach that may not be in our best interests, and so i think learning more and us having the ability to make those decisions is important.
i also think that we will -- by doing nothing, residents and businesses will lose the benefits of advanced health comservices that can limit offers and reduce choice. we lose the opportunity to address net neutrality and privacy issues for residents of the city. so i would just like to suggest that there are ways you can stay engaged, and i would encourage, that if you could find a way to approve the funding, that we bring the results back to you in a timely manner and have an open discussion about the path forward. >> supervisor cohen: all right. what are some of the ways to stay engaged? >> i think we do have the market study that is proposed for this project. when that is complete, i'd like to share that result with you so you can understand what the
potential is on different cost structures and models. we also really need the results from that engineering study and the construction study that would of course weigh against what the true cost is going to be to build any sort of solution for the city. those two things combined will start to give us a more informed path forward. >> supervisor cohen: now real quick, the cost of those studies, is that the 500 k for the project manager? >> no, it was the 300 for the market study and the existing utility conditions was 1.1, and then, the network pilot was 400. >> supervisor cohen: okay. so that's the 1.5 that remains that you're talking about. >> yes. yes. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> that's all i have to share this morning. >> supervisor cohen: let's pivot to the b.l.a. i don't know if there's anything that's changed. >> madam chair and the committee, we have no additional comments at this time. we'd be happy to respond to
questions. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes. thank you very much. after speaking to other colleagues and also to other folks who have researched this, i think fiber is one potential pathway, but i think there are other technologies that are emerging that could give greater access for connection. since there is a 500,000 carry over, i would say that would eliminate the 1.5 from this budget and ask the department of technology to use the 500,000 to conduct the study, but i actually think we should actually be exploring other things, too. this is one pathway, and we want to make sure that if we're going to invest in this, especially this includes microtrenching, very expensive, very disrupting. >> supervisor cohen: and illegal. >> supervisor fewer: yes. and i would like to suggest that we take back the 1.5 million from this, but allow the carry over 500,000 to
conduct that study. >> supervisor cohen: okay. supervisors to my left? supervise stefani, supervise sheehy? okay. >> supervisor yee: can i -- >> supervisor cohen: oh, e supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: i've been asking a little bit about this issue also, and i think what supervisor fewer is suggesting is reasonable, to look at something -- other options besides what they're -- the pathway they're taking at this point. the -- i don't understand technology as well as others, but when people talk to me about it and mention things like 5 something -- >> supervisor cohen: 5g. >> supervisor yee: 5g and other things they don't need to
dig up holes in our ground, it seems a much better option to me. >> supervisor cohen: miss linda, could you comment on that? >> yust one more comment. regardless of the path we take, we need more information. that's what this year was going to be about. it was going to be understanding the market, understanding the construction that would be needed, and understand the network architecture to be put in place. 500,000 is not going to get us there, so i would say we would -- i would have to look at 500, what the value would be, but you will still have holes in what you're trying to understand and make a decision about. so i'd much rather give you an ability to have all the information and make a solid decision than do something piece meal and you still end up with holes and you're not able to fully develop a strategy, so that's just my opinion. >> supervisor cohen: well, perhaps colleagues can consider, instead of 500,000,
750,000. supervisor fewer, is that something you could be comfortable with? >> supervisor fewer: sure, except that i saw on the list it's 300,000 for the study. that's why i thought that 500,000 is enough for the estimated study. if we needed to actually see what sort of physical infrastructure we would need, we could also allocate that money even for next year's budget after the whole study has been done, and that's why i thought the 500,000 was more than enough because on the proposal, it was 300,000 to do the study. >> right. 300 to do the market study just to understand what we're talking about in terms of income. now we need to understand what it would be to expend. so it's basically then taking a project strategy and trying to develop it over two years. and what happens in that time is the market starts to change, and the market will make decisions for us. and then, something that you thought might be an ability and a strategy will be off the
table. so we really have to do both at the same time, so the market study and the construction study needs to happen together is my recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: i think, chair cohen -- so sorry, if we study other potential pathways, then we would have a choice of the direction. and also, i just want to say this: this is something that this mayor has put forward. we don't know if our mayor elect -- if this is the direction that our mayor elect really wants to go to, so that is why i am holding back on the investment. i think yes, mayor farrell might have had a vision, or mayor lee, but we have a new mayor who has a new vision of how we connect everyone in san francisco, and i would like to
leave that up to the new mayor to have flexibility around this issue. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor stefani had a good suggestion. maybe she'll share this. >> supervisor stefani: sure. i think we should put this on reserve -- like have 500,000 for the study and then keep the rest in reserve. >> supervisor cohen: i can live with that. >> supervisor fewer: if that was really the case, i would rather then go with chair cohen's first suggestion of 750 and see where we are at that point and conduct the study. and also not just to conduct this study about the underground fiber but also study other pathways, too, so that we can be presented actually with a choice.
budget creating on these positions. >> ok. supervisor has made a motion. i'll second that motion. and would like to take a moment to put this -- sorry -- to call a role call vote. >> on the motion, supervisor -- [roll call] >> three ayes, one know, supervisor stefani. >> all right. thank you very much. [gavel sounds] passage with one abstention. the next department that we will hear from is from the department of public health. so, the discussion of sexual harassment and assault response
and prevention. this is the sharp program. there are two positions, case managers plus two nurses. nurse practitioners that are funded at the department of public health. one manager is allocated in the proposed spending plan. and right now there is no office identified. however, i just want to note that the money for the sharp program has been designated to be placed into the department of public health. we heard last week from supervisor ronan who requested that it not be held in the department of public health, but be moved into the human rights commission. director garcia, good morning. >> good morning. barbara garcia, director of health. good morning to the board and supervisors of this committee. >> oh, that's it? your opening remarks. [laughter] ok. >> well, let me just talk a little bit. >> yeah, please. >> i didn't know if there was a
question coming. >> please. >> puting this in the department was to look at improving the overall response of sexual harassment and assaults and to protect survivors in san francisco county. we believe that the department can do this and can do a good job of this. but we really have to coordinate with all the other departments. many of the departments have their own charters, have their own processes, protections and we have to work through that. the department works on an ongoing basis with the police department, with the district attorney's office. we have a lot of experience with the court systems and also with the other departments, the department of the status of women, h.r.c., etc.. so, our overall goal would be to develop improvement plans that would be self-directed as well by the departments, but really providing that policy oversight of the departments and also reviewing any care concerns. we heard that from our supervisor regarding our care
at san francisco general hospital. we would have to look at all of the hospitals as well because women and men go to all hospitals in san francisco seeking care from their emergency rooms. so, to the decision of the board, but we're very happy to continue to look at the potential of the department providing this service. >> all right, thank you. i'll turn it over to the b.l.a. to see if there are any changes in thought. or comments. no, you have none? ok. thank you. colleagues, any thoughts on -- on this item? supervisor? >> yes, thank you very much. last week we heard from supervisor ronan about her thoughts about actually this shouldn't sit in public health and this should sit at h.r.c. and we had, because they are in charge of sort of the complaints in the oversight. and so i think that we said we would have a discussion today about that.
and actually, i was convinced that i think that it should be h.n. and h.r.c. as public health are providers of health and services. they are not the oversight of other city departments. where as h.r.c. is. and so i think actually it does belong, the sharp office does belong actually at h.r.c. >> all right. thank you. supervisor yee? i don't see your name on the roster, but i figure you had some thoughts. >> yeah. i was sitting at the hearing and heard the same arguments when there was a committee. and i thought the arguments were pretty sound in terms of -- i think -- let me back up a little bit. this is not just a certain departments couldn't do a good job. i think if it were left at the
department of public health, they may be able to do a good job. but in listening to supervisor ronan, the author of the legislation for sharp, it just makes a lot more stones me. because now we're talking about not just the department of public health, but the police department and so on. and i think h.r.c., you know, has been in that role of taking complaints of different -- about different departments and they would be in maybe better shape to handle this. and i think my sense is that regardless of which department, seems like every rtmepa is brought in to this and want to support this effort. so, i'm inclined to support that we ask the department of public health to alow for h.r.c. to actually play this
function. >> i'm sorry. so i hear you correctly, you'd like to see the functions stay within d.p.h.? >> h.r.c. >> ok. thank you. all right. supervisor, i don't know if you have any thoughts? no? >> if i may, supervisor. >> yes. >> just to be on the record. the department does have a regulatory role in many areas of the city. we regulate restaurants, we also have our emergency medical service. i just wanted to for the record, of course i'll honor whatever the board wants. just for the record, the department does regulate and we have state regulatory powers over our emergency services and that includes the fire department and others. so, just a neat we don't do services. of course, i will honor whatever you decide. ments >> so, this is where i am. this proposal was proposed and dropped into the department of public health budget and barbara garcia is a gracious advocate and recognizes the value of it.
what's interesting to me is that i have not heard the director of h.r.c. at all in this comment. i mean this process. from the two items that -- the two hearings that have occurred on this particular item. i don't have any feelings one way or the other. i just twanlt work to get done and i believe whether it's d.p.h. or h.r.c. that the work will be done. so, i tend to lean on the side of the project sponsor who's expressed a very strong desire that it go into h.r.c. and i'm prepared today to support her on her request for it to go to the h.r.c. it sounds like supervisor furor and supervisor yee are also leaning that way and it also sounds like supervisor stephanie may not have any hard feelings one way or the other. for me, it becomes an i believer use more of how many people do -- how many staff do
we aloe indicate towards this new endeavor and i think the request is for three. i'm more comfortable in the area of two and i feel like two is being thoughtful with the staffing up. so, i wanted to just propose that. oh. and i'll recognize supervisor safai who i didn't realize was coming to talk on this topic. welcome. i see you on the roster. >> thank you, chair. we chaired this conversation the other day and there were folks there from the department of public health but the h.r.c. was able to come and not stay for whole meeting. there was long and powerful testimony from victims and those who had been affected by violent crimes. so, we had a very long conversation. but i, too, was waiting to hear from h.r.c. as to whether or not they were willing to accept this new role because it is a new role for them.
i think there is consensus among supervisor yee and stephanie and myself and supervisor ronan who was on the committee that this is something that has to happen and he want this to happen in the budget. but there still seems to be some questions. one of the things i wanted to ask director garcia because i did not think about it until we were in a meeting that day is part of the role that these staff will play in this new sharp division or office is they have to -- they have to regulate discipline and oversee different actors that are involved in the process. and a lot of them are actually d.p.h. employees. part of the question was does it make sense to have that oversight and office that would be recommending discipline for actions that were performed by d.p.h. employees. does it make sense to have it in d.p.h. so i wanted to hear your
thoughts on that. >> absolutely. first of all, this office is not a regulatory body. it is a kaord nating body that will really look at these issues, but you have to work with each department. within the department. because it is at a very high level. we have complaints. we received grievances and we have a separate compliance office managing that. and so, you know, i get a complaint at least maybe one a day or directly to our compliance office regarding care complaint, concerns and those are investigated separately and also go through h.r., if necessary. so, we're -- the compliance office sits at -- reports to me directly. and if we're responsible to deal with any federal issues regarding medi-cal, etc. >> and there are people looking at the evidence. people that are the nurses.
there's multiple staff that are d.p.h. employees and then this office would be making recommendations for discipline and -- >> this office would make recommendations to our h.r. department just like we would be doing in any other area. so, they work through compliance to h.r. who would deal with -- but this office is not an h.r. department. >> correct. >> the employees have rights, have union representation that any of the -- and even we were to work with other departments like the police accountability, we would be working with them and they have the responsibility of working with each department. >> so, just so i hear from you, what is your strongest argument to have -- maybe i missed it and i just came in. >> i do believe that the department has placed in this situation particularly as it does care and also the responsibilities that we have in relationship that we have with all the other departments. to try to improve care overall and protect survivors of sexual harassment and assault. i do believe we have that ability and we also have a big department that can really put
resources and support. >> thank you. >> khai, i know that part of the conversation was that the item was going -- was referred to g.a.o. and they were going to be further conversations there about the budgetary impliations as well as, i think they were going to hear from human rights commission as to whether or not it was the appropriate place for it and they were willing to accept it. that question was not answered. i think unanimously we support it for the record. >> at what level? >> i think the recommended level of three employees was something that we had agreed on. i think it was the appropriate number. there was one that would do policy, one that would do investigation and one was the director. but ids defer to you on that. >> do you have a sense as to what's the best department to put this? >> no, as i said that was something that was left unanswered and chair -- i mean supervisor ronan said that she was willing to, if it was
ultimately decided to come back to d.p.h., we would bring it back. wemade the graoe. that we would send it out of committee with recommendation with the understanding that if it needed to come back to d.p.h. and not stay in the human rights commission that it would come back to our committee to make the legislative change. >> i understand that. i was just asking for your personal -- >> i understand. and so i think we left that unanswered because we wanted to hear ultimately from cheryl davis. director davis. >> ok. thank you. >> we have our supervisor from hillary ronan's office to answer the question whether or not they have reached out the h.r.c. and whether or not she has spoken to the director of h.r.c. so, would it be allowable for her to speak on behalf of the author?
>> thank you. actually i had a question for supervisor safai. maybe one of the committee persons could answer this question. supervisor safai said the recommended level, that depends on whether you mean the budget recommendation or sponsor's recommendation. i think the sponsor is recommending for three. and the budget recommendation is for two. >> i think that what we made a decision on in the committee was purely to say that this was important, that we -- that it was written into the legislation, that there would be a director and there would be someone handling the claims and victims and one working on policy and two would -- they would all work with one another and they would also coordinate with the department of status and women. >> i requested that the representative from supervisor
ronan's office respond to the question. >> i'm sorry. >> and whether or not they have spoken to the director of h.r.c. >> excellent. please. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm here -- i'm katerina morales, legislative aide with supervisor hillary ronan and also the staff working on the legislation. we've been in close communication with harold davis, the director of the human rights commission and she would love to have this office within her department as barbara has stated as well. they both just wanted to make sure that this office is effective and that we are serving survivors of sexual assault in the best way possible. it has been stated before that this office be in the office of the human rights commission because that is where it is going to serve the role of
overseeing the systems that respond to sexual assault and that is the decision that supervisor ronan is supporting as well. and of course she wants to collaborate with her colleagues and ensure that we're all understanding what the role of the office is and understand how it should be working. [phone ringing] and here is the supervisor calling me in the middle of my speaking. so, i'll connect with her as soon as i'm done. if you have any questions, i'm here and available to answer any questions. >> thank you. supervisor, did you -- you got your question answered? thank you for being here and bringing some clarity. all right. let's take action on this, colleagues. so there's options that we have here. we can leave the funding where it is in the department of public health. we can cut two positions at
d.p.h. or we can add one, two, or three positions at h.r.c. that is basically the world that we have. based on comments earlier, sounds like supervisor furor and yee and myself are happy to move it to h.r.c., what we do not have consensus on is to how many positions. >> supervisor, i just want to add that i'm fine with that as well. i just want the work done. it is extremely important work and to talk about which department, i understand i think both departments can do a good job of it. i just want the work done and i'm supportive of the three staff positions at h.r.c. >> supervisor yee? >> yeah. i think -- correct me if i'm wrong, but what's in the budget to transfer in terms of -- the positions are two? >> that's correct. >> and so i don't know if it's appropriate for us to add enough funding into the budget for three at this point.
can somebody correct me if i'm wrong? >> sure. the budget legislative analysts, their recommendation is for two positions. or we could look at kelly kirkpatrick who could speak to the budget -- the mayor's budget. >> i believe the two positions that are being discussed are 1824 analyst and 2593 health program coordinator. this is a d.p.h.-specific classification and i believe the controller's office and i understand if it were to be transfered to h.r.c. what would be an appropriate classification to substitute for the health-dependent one. >>s willer. -- all right. thank you. >> could we hear from the controller's office? [baby shouting] >> good morning, supervisors. the human rights commission suggests that if you do
transfer these two positions from health to h.r.c. that you substitute them for an 1823 and 1406 job class, which is just a little bit less in terms of classification than what's proposed at health and are more appropriate classifications for the h.r.c. that is the request from the h.r.c. should you move ahead with the transfer. >> and what is the cost -- oh. [baby squeals] >> so, those are the two -- 1823 and 1406, that's not a director of classification, though. correct? what was the director of classification? >> so, these are the two staff that are in the budget. should you want to transfer them and then-h. [baby shouting] and then is suggesting a 2991, which is the job class would be the one for the director position. i believe that's currently on the restoration of the chair list that they have been working as an additional add by
the committee. if you move these two positions, we suggest that you substitute them for these other two. >> ok. all right. so it would be difficult to make that substitution. >> as long as you read it into the record or we understand what you're doing. >> all right. supervisor? >> thank you very much. mr. rosenfield, for clarification. they are suggesting that it should be 1823 and 1406 h.r.c., is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and what is the cost difference? >> i believe it's approximately $20,000 less in terms of cost. >> ok. yay. thanks. >> supervisor yee? >> i just want to finish my thought. we're only talking about two positions at this point in temples -- in terms of what's available in the budget and my suggestion is that we support a third position. and we can do that. >> ok. so for today, we'll discuss -- i'll make a motion that we move
that the sexual harassment and assault response prevention is moved from d.p.h.'s budget into the department of human rights commission. and we are specifically moving to positions, the same two that were allocated for the d.p.h. budget. all right? that is my motion. is there a second? oh, excuse me. supervisor? >> for clarification, do we need to say those positions are 1823 and 1406 instead of what was originally suggested? >> ok. would you like to amend? >> yes. i'd like to amend that to state that in transferring the department of sharp to h.r.c. that the two positions allocated would be at 1823 and a 1406 as recommended by the human rights commission. >> all right. thank you. i'll second that motion and take it without objection. supervisor yee? >> i have a clarification.
should we state also since it's $20,000 less, then that should be also eliminated from the budget? >> yes. controller's office is indicating that that is a yes. >> in moving the motion, that will naturally occur. >> thank you. could we take that motion would objection? ok. without objection, it passes. thank you. next is district attorney's office. [coughing] good morning. good to see you. >> good morning, chair. good morning, supervisors. i know that there were some comments and questions that were left unanswered friday concerning i.i.v. so what i'd like to do is we provided information to the budget legislative analyst. this was done over the weekend so i'm not sure how much time they've had to analyze the work. but what i'd like to do is just
walk you through our concerns and the work th has beedone and i'll be glad to answer any ionsquesthat you may have. i know there was a comment made that i may have been established for three years. it just want to correct the record. i.i.v. came into operation january of 2017 and it will be fully staffed by august of 2018 actually. it was mostly partially staffed during 2017. part of that is because of the recruitment effort, the people that were looking for this unit are people that require special set of skills. so it took a significant amount of time to find right people. it's not simply hiring or hiring investigators, but it is hiring attorneys who have experience dealing with civil rights case and hiring investigators that have experience handling homicides and complex investigations. i'm happy to say that we would be fully funded by august of
this year. and there was a question also concerning a number of cases when you look at the backlog and the cases that have come in. since the unit started, there is a total of 37 cases. 21 being closed and 16 are currently open. let me go into some other concerns that were raised having to do with the issue of accountability and police using force. i think i made it very clear, especially during my conversations recently, but i'll reinstate what i said before. i believe that we certainly have had some problems in some of the officer-involved shootings tan two of them were recently adjudicated. i made it clear and publicly that i believe that those shootings should not have occurred. i believe that they were unnecessary. i put that out in my press conference and i indicated the problems with the law.
however, because the shooting was unnecessary, it doesn't necessarily make it unlawful under current law. what is important for this group to understand and quite frankly there is an opportunity at the state level, which i'm supporting aggressively, which would be new legislation that would reinforce the threshhold that could be used by law enforcement officers so instead of being a a reasonable standard, which is currently used, it would be one that would be necessary, which would significantly make an impact on the way that these cases are reviewed. however, i do believe that there are conversations that i think are important for this body to understand. there might have been some improper comments that were made and they should be on the record. it would be extremely dangerous to have files based on funding.
prosecution-for-hire is not the american way. it's not part of our legal system. and i will go very clear on the record today that we will not accept funding that has such a condition. on the best-case scenario, that would be unethical and could create significant problems for my office. on the worst-case scenario, it could be argued that it could be an offer to bribe or if i work to accept the money in september -- acceptance of a bribe. either one would be a felony. on the other hand, it should be important that we should have an independent investigation of the uses of force and perhaps there are other measures of success that should be evaluated. such as the quality of the investigation, the speed, the scope of the work, and i believe that those things such as administrating the work should be things that this body should consider.
again, i will assure you that if this work in funding comes with an attachment that it has to be a guarantee for prosecutions and convictions, i will not accept the funding. let me walk you through some other things that i think are important. before i.. i.v., many of these cases were taking a very long time. when i.i.v. was finally funded in january of 2017, there was a substantial backlog that i know has been discussed in front of this body multiple times. as i indicated before, we -- when they -- when i.i.v. started, there was approximately 22 cases that were backlogged. most of them may result -- and i know that information has been provided to the budget analyst. i think another thing that is important is the independence of this investigation. the norm around the state increasingly is one where you
have task forces of police agencies that have investigated these cases under the leadership of the district attorney and the agency that has been engaged in the shooting thus not participated in the investigation. that model is not a model that is possible in san francisco because we only have one municipal police department. i know that we have many other agencies that work in the space and we actually have cases involving some of those, but we have a single police department. [please stand by] [please stand by]