tv Government Access Programming SFGTV February 28, 2019 8:00am-9:01am PST
standard. in terms of outreach, we've had a couple of events. friday, we participated in the soma recreational resource fair, and on the 19th, the office participated in the taraval station community meeting. these are meetings, agencies reach out to us, with the mayor's office, with the mohns office. here today in the audience is kristina and sarah in case issues come up where the agency can be helpful to members of the public participating in
tonight's meeting. [inaudible] >> -- new cases as they're coming in, but it's photocopied and we're producing hundreds of copies on a weekly basis. just -- it wasn't very efficient. now, we've coordinated with the police department so it's going to be sent to the titles and to the specific departments that can be changed, and it'll be electronic so we won't have the same problem that we were having in the past. >> i want to ask you about the cases that are 270 days. 25 of those 20 have a totalled statute, so is somebody's hair on fire? somebody told you about those
tolled cases? >> i'm glad you asked that. i get a report on the day of police commission for me to see in red what's happening of that case, and i get that in red every single week of that particular case. >> you're comfortable where those cases are? >> i am. we purposefully did that, and we can talk about those offline. many of them are personnel cases. they're highlighted to me, and a memo gets written to me with what's going on with that case when it gets to this level every single week. >> thank you. commissioner hamasaki. >> commissioner hamasaki: just to follow up on commissioner hirsch's question, are the partied involved -- parties involved, both the complainant and respondent being informed as to that? >> and in addition, the department gets notification, as well.
i just added it onto this form just so we have a broader focus on what those issues are. >> commissioner hamasaki: understood. thank you. >> all right. thank you. next item. >> clerk: item 3-c, commission reports. commission reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting. commission president report, commissioners' reports. >> president hirsch: just a couple of brief items. i have asked the staff to start preparing a monthly calendar starting in march so that all commissioners can see all meetings that are scheduled that have anything to do with commission, so working groups, public groups, i guess, anything that a commissioner could be present, would be present, is participating so we can all see what's happening, and if you're interested in plugging in, you'll coordinate
with the staff so we're not violating any statute or reg. the second thing i want to mention is that we asked a week or two ago to please get comments back to the staff by last friday. this was on the disciplinary matrix, and i don't think we got any comments, is that right -- or did we? >> i'm sorry. i thought it was two weeks. i have it open on my desktop. >> clerk: there were two things sent out. one was a disciplinary matrix, and one was dgo 3.09. disciplinary matrix was back to commissioner elias on the 18th. >> just keep in mind if we set a deadline and we don't meet it, it's gone because we've got to get information out to the public. okay. commissioner dejesus?
>> all right. >> commissioner dejesus: so the community leaders from jamestown community center have formed a group called communities mobilizing change for alcohol, and they're interviewing all these community leaders because they're trying to get a better understanding of how alcohol is impacting youth and their communities. i went -- i didn't know, but we have an alcohol liaison that worked with the a.b.c. and with the department of public health, so i was able to talk to lieutenant georgia sawyer who filled me in on a lot of things that they do in terms of -- any way, they do a lot. so i was able to go and represent this commission there. i did find out a lot of things, so there's like maybe eight, maybe ten communities in san francisco that are
overpopulated with alcohol stores and there's a lot of studies that show that these -- when you have a lot of alcohol in your community, you know, it sets you back, and you have a lot of problems in that community. and i learned that the department has a lot of services in terms of education, presentations, going to events, looking for youth, trying to -- trying to help them. so i did -- i did represent this community there. i did do an interview, and they are going to come back with a study, and i did tell them once they have a study, maybe they can come back and present to this commission. >> president hirsch: director henderson? >> i was just going to say, when we did the report, i forgot to talk about the first amendment stuff. it's in your file. i just didn't want to ignore it because it's in your packet of all your stuff. and i know we got a presentation on it last week,
the presentation -- a packet on -- the only thing in the entirety of the presentation was a recommendation that the video be updated and redone. the video that we use for the training is over a decade old and laws have grown and evolved. >> president hirsch: so this is for information only, is that right? >> it is. it should have been in the report, but i see it here. it's on our compliance with records pursuant to general order 8.10, and we got a presentation last week, but our presentation and commentary on it is on the agenda for this week. >> president hirsch: okay. commissioner brookter? >> commissioner brookter: yes. just wanted to report that over the weekend got the opportunity to attend the second annual bayview area black history parade. we marched from martin luther king park to the opera house. both deputies and officers were handing out stars to the
children, and just to see their faces that day, it was an amazing day. also got the opportunity to participate in a my brother's keeper day, again, to spend time with some high schoolers and families with community as we did some building and community service work. i do want to report today that i met with director henderson. he and sarah hawkins around -- are working together rkts getting a standing agenda and also working on a reporting template to provide to the rest of the body here as we do our work with d.p.a. >> president hirsch: thank you. okay. ready for the next item. >> clerk: item 3-d, commission reports, commission announcements and scheduling of items considered for -- scheduled for consideration at future meetings. >> president hirsch:
commissioner brookter -- is that elias? yes, commissioner dejesus? >> commissioner dejesus: so this is for the chief. you reported on this, but i was wondering when you come back, if we can schedule -- i noticed you -- there was a bakery owner that waited four hours after calling 911, and you made an arrest in that case, but it sounded like -- to my attention, when i read the article, it sounded like there might be a language issue, a person had a broken hand, had a robbery, and waited four hours to get service. i'm hoping you can update on what went on. you said you can two supervisors -- you had two supervisors in the district, and hopefully, you can update us. >> will do in the next commission report. thank you. >> president hirsch: director
henderson. >> just a reminder, i think this is the time to bring it up, presentation -- schedule the audit presentation for the prop g stuff. >> president hirsch: when are you proposing to do that? >> late march -- mid, late march. >> clerk: march 20. >> president hirsch: we have that on for march -- >> clerk: 20. >> president hirsch: we're on. >> thank you. >> president hirsch: okay. next item. >> clerk: for commissioners and the public, the commission will be dark next meeting, and the next meeting will be march 8 in department 4. >> president hirsch: okay. next item. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: my error. public comment on items 3-a
through d. my fault. >> president hirsch: okay. public comment on the items that we've addressed, 3-a through d. >> hi there. brad edwards, excelsior district. i wanted to speak briefly on the matrix contract. i was very pleased to see that back in i think october when there were two consulting firms selected. i see there's about $500,000 available. i'm curious about the methodology in one respect where they're speaking about police. in one, there's just police. i agree, say, with the department they're create -- with the concept they're creating. i would say i would like to see it be addressed, but the d
dispairate duties that we ask them to do because these are such a wide ranging set of tasks, i'd love to hear any comment on that which you may have. also, will provide sergeant kilshaw with a -- with a copy to the body of the minutes in the public comment section. thank you. >> president hirsch: thank you. any other public comment on items 3-a through d? good evening. >> good evening. magic altman. when i see police talking to citizens, i go over. so i other day, i -- the other day, i saw a black man in handcuffs on a cold and wet floor, obviously in mental distress.
i asked if he was okay, and he could not respond. he was incoherent. the other officer came over and talked with me, and i discussed with him how i'm really sorry this is not your job, because what we need is not more police officers but mental health officers. in fact he would like when a call comes in that there be a mental health group listening to those calls and they would go first. or if necessary, if there's a fear of violence, the police would go as backup. but this is not what is happening. so we don't need more officers, we need a mental health team, which, by the way, rupa maria and the group at ucsf would love to help create, so this
idea of more police is not the point. we're having enough problem getting them trained as use of force policy, but that officer that got in my face came over and apologized? the other officer, too, thanked me for my work with the use of force policy. i try to work with the police because i don't think it's fair that they're not doing this mental health work. we've been saying this for years. we need mental health workers to negotiate that. the idea of time and distance is to create that space so there can be care. but when i see another person of color handcuffed on the cement who is mentally ill and handcuffed and being treated like he doesn't matter is disrespectful and awful, and i'm tired of it. >> president hirsch: thank you. any other public comment on items 3-a through d?
>> hello. i'm daniel. just to echo what magic just said, i believe that the city -- it does not handle people who are in crisis well enough? you know, i have straight up seen the breakdown of the city's response to people in crisis from, you know, it going from the hot team who are, you know, actually professionals who do work with people on a regular basis to try and get them into services and housing to it just becoming the police who literally put people in the back of paddywagons to take them to a place that they had just learned about, to offer them services, they have no idea what it's for. by the end of that afternoon, if they're lucky, they're back out on the streets. the police aren't equipped to deal with these situations,
they know they're not equipped for these situations. when the union is fighting an expanding pool of money to fight these situations. you have to understand if they have the citizens and residents and police officers' best interests at heart. like, i've seen the transition to, like, hot team workers going out on the street to the point where they don't have enough staff. now it's literally police learning the day of, and taking people away in paddywagons. especially in today's political climate, it sets a horrible precedent, absolutely horrible. given the scandals that have happened these past two years in the sheriff's department and police department, it's scandalous, to say the least. thank you. >> president hirsch: thank you. okay. any further comment on 3-a through d?
>> good evening. i didn't initially plan to comment on these items, but i'm just a little bit stupefied by the presentation. the allegation that 25% of officer time -- what was the euphemism that come up with, was proactive time, possible proactive time, and i wonder how you would contrast that with stop-and-frisk or harassment time. it may be true that there are certain corners of this city that have less officers than others, but as you see on my shirt, there are many areas out here in this city that are overpoliced. i also think it's ironic that the consultant is named matrix when 23 years ago made restriction was debunked
because of use of poor police practices targeting the homeless and elderly. finally, we're talking about if we instead got rid of 25% of the stop on the sfpd, it would save $132,875,000 per current budgetary numbers, which would be 72% of the erafs funding that the mayor keeps talking about annually. it is ridiculous and offensive that we're even having this conversation in this forum. this should be presented to the people of san francisco in clear, coherent terms, and we really do not need anymore cops. >> president hirsch: thank you. anymore public comment? okay. public comment is closed. next item. >> clerk: okay. now, we're on item 4 -- >> president hirsch: oh, mr. henderson, did you have a comment? [inaudible] >> clerk: -- complaints
against officers and m.o.u. between d.p.a. and sfpd or take action as necessary. discussion and possible action. >> president hirsch: okay. who was taking a lead on this? public comment? i'm sorry. okay. come on up. we're going to go back. >> good evening. my name is reeta lark. i live in north beach place, and we were talking about police being involved in the community. okay. they had one cop and coffee event down in north beach, which i got to talk to the captain down at north beach station, and i got to talk to him about a lot of concerns. then yesterday, when i called and tried to talk to the captain, sergeant smith called me. the reason that i'm trying to get something done is because the death of my neighborhood underneath me, the management won't confirm his death.
his brother is continuing to be him. the dope house is still open and going. the pedophile ring -- the office down have their favoritism where they're selling drugs or doing something on the street, they ignore it and continue to drive by. the reason that this man's death needs to be confirmed is because i'm trying to get one dope house beneath me closed because i have lost two service animals because of the secondhand smoke that comes into my unit. the management is no help. she's just like the police. she chooses to ignore what it is and getting down to the basics. if we had more food paroles and community -- foot patrols and community involvement, i wouldn't have to come here. i could go straight to my police department and get it addressed. and then, when the fire department came and removed the man's body and confirmed his
death, they said maybe you have to get a subpoena to show where he passed away. like i said, i'm getting passed around and nothing is getting fixed. i've wrote many letters to your office about these vagrants coming in. like i said, they've drained this man's bank account. you have this man's house and another apartment -- [inaudible] >> president hirsch: okay. is there anybody here who can talk to her about it? all right. if you would talk to lieutenant yamaguchi. we're back on item four. this is an item we addressed before, but we have suggested edits and conditions by the california department of justice, is that correct? >> that's right. this was in large part precipitated by a letter cal
d.o.j. sent to the department in late july 2018. i have participated in meetings with the chief and cal d.o.j. in making changes to the d.g.o. 2.04 which governs crimes against police officers. related to that is the m.o.u. you also have before you between -- between sfpd and d.p.a., and the different roles and responsibilities of each agency. and so this is the result of a lot of work between the department, a lot of work from cal d.o.j. i want to commend director henderson. there's a lot of collaboration and back and forth between the d.p.a. and coming to the documents that you have before
you. and so if there are any questions, i'll be glad to ad them. >> president hirsch: commissioner elias? >> commissioner elias: yes. my question is with respect to the m.o.u., why an m.o.u. is needed because it's my understanding there's no m.o.u. in place. so what precipitated the need for an m.o.u. with respect to this d.g.o. >> president hirsch: director henderson, do you want to address that? why is there an m.o.u.? >> there are a lot of vagaries, not just about what was going to be covered but about what the interaction was going to be between my office and the police department, as well, and they alluded to third parties, as well. so for instance, the information about interactions that came to my office, say, from other government agencies and then how we process that information, when we shared information and to whom we shared information, all of those details which are kind of in the weeds, it was difficult just to make presumptions about
them, and it seemed best practices would be to clarify so there would be no ambiguity, and they weren't things that came up on a case-by-case basis, and they opened the door up to things that weren't getting resolved. it made it that much easier to get it articulated in this matter. >> i will say as someone who participated in some of these meetings, there was confusion on the part of cal d.o.j. on the information of roles. information between d.p.a. and d.o.j. was confusing. those kind of things, it's important to have.
>> president hirsch: i think also, if i remember, going back, there were more specific being put in an agreement than a d.g.o. which is going to be on a review cycle of every five years. it's much tougher to amend a d.g.o. than it was an m.o.u., and i think director henderson is right that these are in the weeds issues sometimes as to how things will function, when quarterly reports will be given, how the parties will share information. i know there are still questions that the director has about access to information, for example, and if that becomes an issue going down the road, i think the commission will have to weigh in and get involved to figure some of this out. >> i will say, too, that some of the specifics -- oh. >> president hirsch: no, it's okay. >> i was just going to say that
some of the specifics in here broaden the work of the d.p.a. to the commission. specifically like the 270-day stuff that is now being presented to the commission, that was never certified anywhere, finalized anywhere. and even things -- i don't want to go through the whole document about some of the things -- some of the high level things that i thought were clarification about complaints that may come in about other government agencies and referral that behavior to -- specifically to, like, the district attorney's office when criminal activity is uncovered as part of an independent investigation from my office. those things, while they may seem to make common sense, they -- variouseous minds differed as to what would be appropriate both what could be expected from my agency in conducting the investigation and what was expected once behaviors or transgressions
were found and uncovered by my agency and how we shared that agency both to the department, to outside thirt-party agencies and to the commission. that's basically what the m.o.u. was covering. >> commissioner elias: that kind of granularity might not be appropriate. that kind of getting in the weeds, it makes sense for an m.o.u. but perhaps not for a general order. >> president hirsch: commissioner hamasaki. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you. director henderson, i had a question about the d.p.a. procedures under section 4-a-6. that's at page two. >> president hirsch: is that in the d.g.a. or m.o.u.? >> commissioner hamasaki: d.g.a. -- i mean, the --
>> president hirsch: 2.04. >> commissioner hamasaki: right. so i was talking about the m.o.u. i thought that's what we were talking about. okay. so i'm talking about the m.o.u. sorry. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> commissioner hamasaki: so about the d.g.o. -- >> d.g.o.? >> commissioner hamasaki: no, i'm just kidding. page two, section four, the second paragraph states in cases involving investigations, d.p.a. shall not receive the i.a.d. conclusions and investigative recommendations until i.a.d. has received the completed d.p.a. reports. can you explain why you would not want to receive their investigative conclusions and recommendations? to my understanding, part of
what d.p.a. does is not only investigate complaints but also investigate whether or not in fact investigation itself was done in a way that can bring confidence to -- to the d.p.a., to the departments of the city. can you explain why you would not want to see their conclusions and recommendations? >> there's no reason why we not want to receive those -- that information or the conclusion. i think that's what president hirsch was talking about when he said that their -- this was really in the weeds, one of the long, arduous fights on this stuff. each one was back and forth to get to where we were, and this was one of the concerns that we had addressed. and as president hirsch had said, this was why these
specific issues are in the m.o.u., because we plan on monitoring and watching these issues to make sure that the information that we got is absolutely what is appropriate for us to have. but i always want all of the information at every time always, and that's my position that i am always arguing for or we're advocating for. >> commissioner hamasaki: so that was a long answer to get to. >> oh, sorry. >> commissioner hamasaki: if d.p.a. had its ideal version, and the version that would give it the best ability to do its job in its oversight capacity, could we go ahead and strike the second part of this section -- subsection? >> you mean, elimination of number seven completely? >> commissioner hamasaki: no, no, six; that you shall not
receive -- >> oh, yeah, yeah. i see what you're saying. >> commissioner hamasak >> commissioner hamasaki: strike that, and would that give you a better opportunity to do your role as defined by the charter and so forth? >> yeah. >> president hirsch: yes me define that because the commission u commission under president turman had approved that, and that was the thinking at the time. the d.p.a. is an independent investigatory body, and the commission believed that the d.p.a. should come up with their own conclusions based upon the facts that they had, which they presumably could get access to from the department, and that is the issue, i think, that was of most interest to me, is that the d.p.a. felt they were not getting sufficient information from the department. but the question was should they be able to come to a conclusion of their own only
after they see the completed kplugs of internal affairs or should they come to their own conclusion independently, and then the two of them meet and reach a conclusion based on what they each decided. i think the feeling of the commission was why should the d.p.a. be influenced by what the i.a.d. does. >> i will say in the past, the agency had some difficulties in finishing and completing and conducting a lot of their independent investigations in the way that we are capable and are doing right now. just saying that there's some history here of -- >> commissioner hamasaki: right. and so what i would propose is to strike that language so that difficulty wouldn't exist. and i understand the president's concerns, but they're an oversight agency as
to the investigations, as well. so it's not a situation where the d.p.a. as it exists now is going to rubber stamp the department's conclusions. but rather, the point of having this language stricken would be to allow them, as director henderson was just saying, to complete their investigation in a timely fashion because they would also be able to review whether or not they believed that the department and internal affairs had done whatever the standard is that they should be doing. and then, the second part of it is also i think there's a concern that including this language conflicts with some of
our local ordinances. i was looking at this earlier. [inaudible] >> commissioner hamasaki: well, there we go. >> yeah, but the language was not that clear. [inaudible] >> i was pointing out the name of the ordinance, which i believe was 96.a. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. and so the language in there was that -- i'll just skip to the meat of it, which is to provide -- the police department to provide prompt and full cooperation and assistance in connection with complaints being investigated by the d.p.a. the police department shall promptly disclose all documents and records requested by the d.p.a. except where the disclosure is prohibited by law. so to me, having this line in here, from a -- from allowing the department -- the d.p.a. to do its job, it seems like it slows it down unnecessarily. and then two, i'm -- it seems
to directly conflict with the city charter which sets the duties and obligations of the d.p.a. >> president hirsch: let me just address that because we did go through that once before. in my opinion, the d.p.a. is entitled to all the documents that would allow them to come to a conclusion after an investigation. the only thing i think that they shouldn't have is the final conclusion of internal affairs until they both sit down with their conclusions, and that's when they meet and try to figure out whether they agree or agree to disagree. but why should the d.p.a. be influenced by the final decision of the internal affairs department. >> commissioner hamasaki: it's not that they're not influenced. >> president hirsch: but they would. they would. when they come together and the
d.p.a. says our decision on the final investigation, and the department says this is our decision -- >> commissioner hamasaki: so i think my understanding is that it's not the d.p.a.s obligation to sit down and negotiate their findings. they have independent oversight authority over the department. this seems to conflict with that, and so they don't have to sit down and say hey, we agree that you guys did a good job or you didn't do a good job. what they should be saying is you know, i've reviewed this investigation and your conclusions. i find that in your conclusions, you know, either the actions were completely supported or if i find your actions unsupported, that's an additional basis to challenge whether the i.a.d. or department has done their job. that's squarely within their authority. i don't see why we would take
that away from them. >> president hirsch: i actually think that's what the commission is about. all right. so let me go to commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner dejesus: okay. so page four on the m.o.u., so page four, and then, it's e, and it's highlighted in red. i just need clarification. i've read it several times. i don't understand the sentence. so let me just -- in cases where the d.p.a. has sustained a complaint by a preponderance of the evidence against the chief of police, the d.p.a. shall transmit its complete findings and case to the police commission. you're going to have a finding against the chief? i'm not clear what that means. it has to be against the chief of police or against one of his officers? >> i think that line was talking about if a complaint comes in that involves the chief, where it goes. so it's not that we get a complaint about the chief specifically and directly, and
then, we turn it over to internal affairs. >> commissioner dejesus: okay. so this is against the chief. i just wanted to make sure i read it right. >> okay. >> commissioner dejesus: and then, if you want to go to -- if you want to go to where he was on page two, it's section four -- 5-c. this may not be the right place, but i just want to throw it out there. we did find out that there were cases that the d.p.a. did have cases that actually ran up against the statute of limitations and had to be dismid, and we found out -- dismissed, and we found out about it after it was too late. so this talks about nine months, and whether you can make anything in nine months. this says, the director shall advise the chief of police for specific reasons and the expected completion dates.
i would add, and the commission. because we need to know if we have something that's hitting a nine-month mark or a statute of limitations. >> i agree 100%. that's the 270-day report. we already do beyond that. and i would say just to speak to that, we've had no 3304 failures since day one. >> commissioner dejesus: i know that. >> since i've been there. >> commissioner dejesus: so let me back up a little bit. is it in here or is it something complete and different with the 270-day report. >> that is it. it is the 270-day report. it is delineated in writing with the chief directly and with the department, but it's also the weekly meeting that we have. that's the 270-day overview that i give. when i talk about what cases have been tolled and what cases haven't been tolled? >> commissioner dejesus: right. but if you're notifying the chief of what the nine months
are, maybe we should get a notification, too. >> i'm happy to add it. like i said -- >> commissioner dejesus: like a tickler system. >> but i'm happy to do -- whatever makes the commission feel comfortable. i have the report prepared, i send them to the chief. if you want them, i can -- >> president hirsch: chief scott. >> thank you, commissioner. i just wanted to -- commissioner elias' questions -- going back to the department of justice and recommendations, and i won't read it all, but thank you look on page 144, there are a couple of paragraphs that talk about the relationship between the d.p.a. and the san francisco police department and the need to have a better working relationship given everybody's responsibilities and then there's a number of
recommendations that flow from that. part of this, director henderson and i were here from the beginning. there are clear lines, at least the basic structure of what the rules are, rules of engagement are, particularly from the d.p.a. side. we have a number of general orders in terms of our discipline process and all that. but for the commission, particularly when there's conflicts or there's disagreements, for the commission to have a document, a guiding document to go by, with what we agree is our rules of engagement, everybody at the table at that time felt that was a clear understanding of the d.o.j. relationships, and a clear understanding of the lane we were supposed to be at, so that was what was behind the m.o.u. at this time. >> president hirsch: commissioner elias. >> commissioner elias: thank you, chief. i'm glad to hear that's sort of the direction we're going, and
i'm happy to hear that because when i first joined the commission and this d.g.o. was before us, it was mind blowing to me to realize that d.p.a. wasn't able to receive government agency complaints, meaning public from the people defer's office -- public defender's office or district attorney's office or other governmental agencies were not able to forward complaints to the d.p.a. and that was just mind blowing to me. now under the new d.g.o., that's pir mied. i think those agencies, they come into contact with community on a daley basis, and i think it's important those people in those positions can forward complaints or make the d.p.a. aware of what's going on. so i do appreciate that. >> thank you. >> commissioner elias: the one thing that i will say in following up on commissioner hamasaki's comment with respect
to item number six, i am concerned about that. my concern is that i don't -- i think that d.p.a. as an independent body shouldn't sort of have to meet and confer or have to meet and agree with i.a.d. with respect to their conclusions on, you know, what their investigation entails or what the results are because it's my understanding that d.p.a. doesn't obtain their file, correct? >> correct. >> commissioner elias: and it's also my understanding that d.p.a. doesn't have sort of compelling powers. you can't force people to come in and do interviews with you. i mean, you have some powers to have certain, you know, officers come in, but you don't really have subpoena powers or other powers to make people or witnesses or other parties come in and talk to you. >> correct. >> commissioner elias: which is a function that i.a.d. does have access to, or can.
>> yes. it's kind of a gray area, and we work it out generally with the department where we coordinate with them if -- you know, surprisingly, there are sometimes, instances where members don't want to come and speak with us, and we work it out. >> commissioner elias: do you think reviewing i.a.d.s file would be helpful to you in your investigation? >> it always is. >> commissioner elias: but you don't have it. >> in the past or in the context of the m.o.u. >> commissioner elias: well, in reading the m.o.u. it seems it would be one sided. >> i think the focus is the final language in the file. they're distinguishing between the final collusion and the file. >> yeah. they would get the final file just as commissioner hirsch pointed out, and he's absolutely right about all the
discussion about that issue that happened when we were going through it. but it's just a conclusion. they get everything else. >> commissioner, just before i cancel my request to speak, so to commissioner elias' question to the meet and confer. the meet and confer with the director and the chief of police is not to necessarily come to an agreement. i mean, it's really to discuss the issues and i think the spirit behind it is again, this is part of the d.o.j. assessment or recommendation is to have a better disciplinary process. and often times when director henderson and i talk, we may end up disagreeing, but we flush out the issues. and sometimes there's things he might request from our end and vice versa that will lead to both of us having more insight on arriving at a decision. as you all know, sometimes we do disagree, and those cases
can be brought to the commission. but it really is not the purpose for him or me to cave-in to the other's opinion, it's really to discuss and make sure that we are addressing everything that needs to be addressed so we come to the right decision, and that's really the spirit behind this. and sometimes, we never agree, but we do have discussions on what the issues are. >> and i apologize. i do agree with you. i used the wrong choice of words. i do agree that meeting with director henderson is very important for you to see each side, and i don't think you are necessarily going to agree. >> sometimes we agree. >> commissioner elias: it happens. >> president hirsch: vice president scott -- taylor. >> vice president taylor: so part of the background for this, as i understand it, so d.p.a. investigates incidents, complaints surrounding
particular law enforcement incidents, and the concern that i certainly have is that d.p.a. has all of the information that they need to be able to do so. and so for example the full investigative file is critical for d.p.a. to have. and my understanding is in the past, there was reluctance. what d.p.a. is investigating is a particular incident. they're not investigating i.a.d. and so i.a.d. must absolutely, and there should be no confusion -- and as should sfpd turnover the complete investigative files when it comes to complaints. i mean, that has been an historical problem, and that should not be a problem moving forward, and that's what
president hirsch was referring to when he said we will revisit this if it becomes an issue. whether or not i.a.d. has made a particular conclusion or draft conclusion, they should be going on concurrent tracks with both parties getting identical information, and if that's not happening, that's a problem. so i just read the charter. i've read it before, and you know, it -- it -- it -- any way, reasonable minds can disagree, but i don't think that anyone disagrees that d.p.a. should have the full panoply of information they need to investigate the incidents they're investigating. >> president hirsch: commissioner hamasaki. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you. again, so i understand the position of commissioner -- president hirsch and vice president taylor, but nobody has addressed the question of
the d.p.a.s ability to investigate the investigation, and that's why they need the -- the findings and conclusions because that is part of their duty, and that does fall within the charter. and so they are -- if they don't have -- if the i.a.d. says -- they do this whole investigation, and they see all the evidence that looks bad, and they say well, we find no violations, they can challenge that, and that's part of their role, is to challenge whether not just the department by i.a.d. is doing a job that should give the city and all of us confidence. and so if they don't have their findings and recommendations, they don't have the ability to challenge that. so what it ultimately does is it extends the processes director henderson stated in the past. this is something that, to my understanding, based on his
comments this evening, they have asked for, so i don't see the harm in allowing d.p.a. the full authority to do their job. i think outside of that, the m.o.u. is in good shape, and i would move to adopt it with the amendments, striking the second paragraph of section 4-a-6, beginning with in cases involving concurrent investigations, the single sentence. >> president hirsch: is there a second? >> commissioner elias: second. >> president hirsch: okay. on the question? >> yeah, i just want to be specific. i know you're saying investigating the investigation, but i want you to point to a document. because from what i understand, d.p.a.s job is to investigate
an investigation. what we're talking about is investigations that are appearing -- you know, happening on concurrent tracks. and in that event, d.p.a. is not investigating another investigation, they're investigating the underlying complaint, the underlying incident. if there's some statutory authority or something that says otherwise, we should all see it, but i've read the charter and i've read these materials before. i just want to be able to point to -- point to authorities for these. >> president hirsch: if the d.p.a. disagrees with the position of the department, the department says five-day suspension, d.p.a. says termination, and they can't -- then, they actually two always meet to see if they -- do always meet to see if they can come to a single conclusion. the d.p.a. has the right to come to the conclusion, where they file their own charge
here, and that's how the process should work. but what i worry about, i don't ever want the d.p.a. to be influenced by the conclusion of the department. i want them to come to their own conclusion based on their own investigation of the facts that they were able to get, and i want them to get everything. >> commissioner hamasaki: but that's the purpose of an independent agency, right? >> president hirsch: that's not their role. >> commissioner hamasaki: what this suggests to me is what we're going to do would be to memo memorialize in this m.o.u. the restriction of the opportunities to investigate. so i don't know -- it's -- they are independent of the department. the departments exist over here. we don't interfere -- like, to me, this is interfering with their ability to investigate which is why i'm concerned, which is why i don't feel krned
with this particular section, but i feel concerned about -- concerned with this particular section, but i feel concerned about -- >> president hirsch: commissioner dejesus? >> commissioner dejesus: so i think a point of clarification. if you read the sentence above, it says the d.p.a. shall send completed investigation to i.a.d. within 30 days, except the nine-month deadline if it's -- then, they have to send it right away. so you do have the d.p.a. giving i.a.d. the complete investigation. if you eliminate the complete sentence, that's saying the i.d.a. recommendations and conclusions -- i.a.d. recommendations and conclusions, they won't give it until d.p.a. gives them theirs,
so -- >> commissioner dejesus: all right. so how will d.p.a. get a copy of i.a.d.s report? >> commissioner hamasaki: well, that's the thing. they won't if we strike this language. >> president hirsch: we have a motion and a second. you have a right to demand a vote. i'm going to suggest we take it off the calendar and do more homework outside of this meeting and bring it back when we can reach an agreement. do you have a problem with that? we can have a vote, but we have six people here, which is a problem. >> commissioner hamasaki: i know how you two -- >> president hirsch: i'm not sure. we haven't had public comment -- >> commissioner dejesus: but he was going to clarify the different -- why i was wrong, and i cut him off. >> i think we should bring it
back because we have more items. >> vice president taylor: and i know we have more items. i'd like to do more research myself. >> commissioner hamasaki: i know. i made a motion. we have a second. >> commissioner elias: i don't feel i'm in a position to vote. i feel like we should do more research. >> president hirsch: i know, but there's a motion and a second, and they have a right to have a vote. the vote may not go their way, but we have to have public comment. okay. so we'll ask for public comment on this issue only, and that has to do with 2.04 and the m.o.u. and what we're talking about in terms of access to the conclusions -- i.a.d.s conclusions and investigative recommendations, when does d.p.a. get that. any public comment? >> strictly with regard to this vote? >> president hirsch: yeah. >> commissioner brookter: for me, there shouldn't be any data
that i.a.d. has that d.p.a. shouldn't have, and that i'm more -- i'm less concerned with the question of conclusions or not. i'm sure director hen do remember son has -- does his own homework, as we like to think that we all do, but i would imagine -- i would hope that there's no data that is available to i.a.d. that is not available to d.p.a. hirs >> president hirsch: thank you. any other public comment? okay. public comment is closed, so we're waiting for a vote then. can you restate the motion? >> clerk: yes. on the motion to accept the m.o.u. with the amendment to strike the second paragraph in section 4-a-6 -- [roll call] >> vice president taylor: i think we need to have i.a.d.s
conclusion. [roll call] >> clerk: the motion fails, 3-3. >> president hirsch: okay. so i'd like to -- then, i'm going to remove the remainder -- i don't want to have a motion should we adopt it as it is and have that deadlock. let's go and do our homework so we know what we're dealing with. next item. [inaudible] >> president hirsch: yeah, we're getting there. >> clerk: you want to take d.g.o. 2.04? you put the whole thing over. >> president hirsch: i'd like to put the whole thing over because they're so
interrelated. >> clerk: before we move on, we need public comment on this item. >> president hirsch: which item is that? >> clerk: item four. >> president hirsch: didn't we just have that. >> clerk: that was public comment? hirs >> president hirsch: we just had that. >> clerk: on the whole item. got it. >> president hirsch: the whole item? [inaudible] >> president hirsch: 2.04, yes. did you not understand that you were able to talk about 2.04? that's what we were talking about? [inaudible] >> president hirsch: you have something else to talk about on 2.04. >> very much -- brad edwards on 2.04. as you mentioned, governmental agencies previously, they weren't able to file a complaint with d.p.a. i'm curious about when -- that was at o.c.c. or was that more recently? i recall you had brian
stansbury who arrested a public defender. he's now the director of the san francisco retirement system. was this an incident he did not face anything for that, and i'd like to hear any comments you might have. >> president hirsch: okay. thank you. any other public comment on 2.04? all right. hearing none, next item. >> clerk: this is item five, discussion and possible objection sunshine task force order of determination issued june 2, 2018 in sunshine task force case number 17131, discussion and possible action. >> president hirsch: okay. i think that commissioner dejesus ask that this be put on the agenda. >> commissioner dejesus: i did. so you know, it was good to read the file again. i think -- and i hope -- i mean, i certainly hope everyone read it. but -- i'm assuming everybody read it. but you know, this is -- the brown act is really important. if you read it, it says the
people of the state did not yield their sovereignty to the agencies who serve them. the people insist on remaining informed so they may retain control over the instruments they have created. and so november 3, we were here to decide whether or not we were going to add tasers to the use of force policy, and there was a disruption, and there was two things that were done. i went back and looked at it, and commissioner turman, first, he terminated the meeting and then he said it was at recess. and then, we were moved -- as you all know who were here, we were moved. you abo but i wanted you to know we were moved surreptitiously. we were moved through the mayor's office and to get on an elevator. we actually hid from