Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  March 27, 2019 11:00am-12:01pm PDT

11:00 am
they're looking at the the number of vehicle stops, i stopped two vehicles a month and my partner stops 30, well, then, hi use of force probably is not my use of force won't be the equal of my partners so those are why they have those there. but it's looking at the totality of everything on that alert, not just the use of force of what they're looking at and what they're trying to accomplish. >> i understand that and some of the factors associated factors make sense but one was weather voluntary overtime worked and i'm not sure how those equate into that. >> well, overtime so when that
11:01 am
supervisor sits down and talks with them, what's going on with you? you've had five complaints and that might open tow up to a face conversation to find out what's going on with this officer and why are you working so much overtime? do you need that overtime and now your job and home life is suffering? it's that what they're using for the associated factors. >> on the left side on the flow chart it incomes three levels of review or actually the two that happen before it gets to you, right? >> right. >> so after the threshold activator goes off it's reviewed by the officer sergeant and if the officer sergeant feels that it wasn't something that should have -- the activation shouldn't have gone off and they decide to closed it, does that information get to you or does it go into the closed file? >> oh, no, they all come back to
11:02 am
me. i send them out, they're sent back to me and they say i recommend it closed, i review it and if i don't think it should be closed because i'm saying i don't though, i see a pattern, i can override that and send it back to the station and telling the captain that an intervention should be opened on this particular person. >> why is there a review by a supervisor between the sergeant and you, then? >> so there's a review by the eis sergeant which is me to find out if it's a valid alert. because it could not be a valid alert based on what the machine is spitting out and it's reviewed by the supervisor who i send to the station and i look at it, it's a valid alert. they go over it and he sends it back to me and that verification is by me to verify their work if it's at-risk or not at-risk. >> and then where is the data that shows that this eis system works? >> i don't think there is data to show it works. [ laughter ]
11:03 am
>> aii'm wondering how often it identifies whether an officer will use force. you know, these are pretty graphs and numbers but where is that data? >> that kind of goes to what i was talking to commissioner brookter about, it's hard to measure something that hasn't happened. so whether eis works or not is what the university of chicago is doing. they're trying to say the threshold system may not be the best and should be from the data, science report. so that report which we present at the next quarterly meeting with hopefully delve into this question. >> how long have they been analyzing this to get us this report. >> we started sending data mid2016 and we continue to send
11:04 am
data as we kept getting it in. they would ask for certain amounts and it takes awhile because they're si lookeiloed fs batch and sent them data as we were able to get that and they probably that for a year and a half that we were crunching the numbers and they kind of fell out. >> three years later we get a report? >> yes. a number of things have happened with the university of chicago in that time. but we should get the final report within the next couple of weeks. >> how much are we pay for the system? >> it was under a grant. be didn't pagrant.we didn't pay. >> have there been occasions where you've gotten a report that says this is closed and you send it ba back and no, there'sa problem here? >> no. director henderson? >> i wanted to some of in
11:05 am
context to what was raised by the commissioners but to point out all of the work, this early intervention system is one of the recommendations that the doj had asked us to really focus on and to point out that it's an emerging industry which is why there aren't a lot of programmes around doing the type of work and this answers the question that was brought last week commission dejesus was asking about the system and what opportunities for more training or other alternatives and there's not a lot out there but that speaks to some of the stuff that's in the pipeline right now that is better than the thresh threshold approach which focuses more on a system that could be data-driven and that's what's in the pipeline that i think sergeant youngblood was references in my office and dba has been working closely with the department as we've been trying to something like this
11:06 am
together. i would say that just to reiterate what sergeant youngblood was saying, that report is coming out in the next few weeks. i would imagine that at the next quarterly report of this, you would have something specifically and concretely to look at and evaluate from that programme and i hope that's what we stay focused on, not to throw this out the window because we have something with numbers here and a lot of the parties are at the table. but obviously, i think, the goal is defining something that has a higher or at all a predictive value. >> commissioner dejesus. >> this is complicate and part of this, we need to understand, this is to try to predict at-risk behaviour and to try to predict offices h that might get in trouble down the road. there's to science to this, but, for example, one of the things i learned at the presentation. you have an officer who has a
11:07 am
batteries, resisting arrest, use of force, civil suit, you are getting those kind of ca categories, those are the kind i look at and look behind the scene to what that type of behaviour is. versus if you have somebody late to work, missed the court appointment, things like that, who may have other issues in their life and not necessarily would show a person who may be prone to at-risk behaviour in terms of use of force. we have a threshold activation system and what director henderson is saying we get a lot of fall negatives. that's why you get 3,000 hits and three people being counseled. so the numbers are shocking. on the other han hand, we don'tt a lot of people being counseled because we like the idea of not a lot of people getting hits.
11:08 am
the university of chicago abandoned us and kind of come bab and given a tentative draft report and it's theirs and the department will be working with them on that i guess that will be coming forward soon. and what the chief said, they were kind enough to invite me to see a different system and it more often event-driven system, more holistic in terms of not a check box. ten officers had their guns drawn on one person and that's ten things. it's more holistic in terms of looking behind the scene, looking at the event, looking at the charges, looking at the officer's training, looking at the officer's personnel record, looking at the officer's shift and his unit and how he compares to his unit. so it's a little bit different and something proposed and they were kind of enough to let me sit in on that. that's what you have. you'll have a checklist which doesn't necessarily help us and then, of course, the university
11:09 am
abandoning us didn't help us either. on the other hand, there was another approach but it's new, also new and it's similar to what they use in l.a., if i understand that right, chief. but that might be a better approach for us. so that's something that the department is looking into and hopefully, we'll see if that might be right for us but it's quite expensive and it would also -- we have a lot of data that's pretty complicated but it would have to be added and tailored to our use but more of a holistic approach in terms of trying to analyze an officer's behaviour. did i say that right? >> is the university of chicago report of any value to us or is it so flawed that it's really just junk?
11:10 am
>> we pointed out some things to take a second and third look at. they had a lot of turn-over, and i'm not making excuses. so when we get the report, we'll look at it and evaluate it and bring it to the commission. >> can you give us a brief idea of what the commissions were? >> 18% reliable -- criteria was 18% valor and i forgot the wording and it made it sound like we're failing but we're not because we don't want a high percentage. i don't have it in front of me. but i think he has a staff person. they didn't have all of the stats. they went ahead without our full stats and then they made predictions based on that and so having uncomplete information and that's one that i remember. i don't remember anything else. do you remember anything else? >> there are a lot of misspells
11:11 am
and mislabelings of graphs. >> really? >> during the conversations back and forth, they would tell us this data is from 2016 to 2018. and then during the call, the report said 2017. so they were giving us conflicting information of what time period they were using. the graphs didn't match up. the typos were common and there were a lot of little things but when we had the analysts run numbers to bea compare what they were saying in our report, they didn't match up. we asked them to address that in the report and there was a lot of -- there's a little bit of contention where they were saying they didn't have the time to work on this the way that we wanted to and so -- but now they're working on it. >> thank you. >> thanks very much. anything else, chief? >> no. >> ready for the next item.
11:12 am
>> item 1b, dpa director's report, report on recent dpa activities an announcements. dpa's report will be limited to a brief description of dpa activities an announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any issues raised for a future admission meeting. presentation of dpa's audit of sfpd use of force and director paul henderson is present from dpa. >> good evening, director henderson. >> good evening. my normal update, we have 138 cases are open at this point this year versus 112 which was at this point same time last year. in terms of cases closed, we are at 121 cases we've closed at this year versus 107 this time last year. in terms of cases pending, there are 295 cases pending versus 245 cases. these numbers are reflecting the spike in cases we've had
11:13 am
recently. in terms of 17 cases sustained, we are at 17 cases sustained so far this year versus six this time last year. of the cases that are being told passed the 270 days, we are at 228. of that number, 19 toll an 19 td again, these are the cases this the pipeline for over 270 days. cases mediated, we are at four and we were also at four the same time last year. in terms of operationally, what's going on with the department, we are in the midst of our contract negotiations for the new case management system and we've been working on that for months. but i think it's nearing a close. in terms of strategic planning with our outside consultants,
11:14 am
we're continuing to work on that and we're also going through our budget process right now. we've submitted our budget proposals and we are waiting to hear back from the mayor's office. the 19th of this month, the office attended both richmond and taravell meetings and tonight, we have one of the cases from closed session. the courtroom today or in the hearing room today, we have our senior investigator steve ball, two of our attorneys, stephanie wilson and tanetta thompson and my chief of staff, sarah hawkins, in case there are issues to come up in which we can be helpful or the department can be helpful for the audience. >> mediation does not seem to be very popular and yet, it's actually very effective. what can we do?
11:15 am
>> what we have done is just recently, we had the entire mediation team go around with the chief and speak to all of the command staff, talking about what the system is and how it works. and i doubled the staff that was this that department, because i, too, think that the mediation stuff is really important and i'm trying to make it more robust. it's one of the highest rated elements in the agencies and it constantly gets the best feedback out of all of our operations. people really value participating this the process and i think it's beneficial to the department, as well, specifically since it gives the officers an opportunity to hear directly one-on-one from the folks they are interacting with on a daily basis and vice versa. the community feels like they are given a voice and an audience with law enforcement in ways that they have not experienced in the past and don't typically experience based
11:16 am
on whatever interaction they've had that brought them to the dpa in the first place. so the department has been at the table and we are certainly at the table in terms of trying to come up with creative ways to expand that work, but obviously, i think there's more work that can be done. >> it's up to the complainant who comes in. if the complainant is willing to mediate, the officer has to then mediate the case some? well, they don't have to, but if they don't, the alternative is to initiate and proceed with the full investigation and possibly a sustained case and/or discipline. >> there's every reason to do it. >> every reason. >> the problem is the public so far has not been interested or willing. >> it is a com b combination of things. obviously there are also standards that are restricted from falling in the mediation so
11:17 am
if there are serious cases, those are cases that can't be mediated at all and we have taken an expandive view and certainly more expansive than was in existence for mediation, broadening some of the categories. an expect, so, for instance, an officer-involved shooting, obviously that's not going to be a case that could be immediate d but if on the way to an officer-involved shooting, the officer did something inappropriate that had nothing to do with the shooting, there are no longer these blanket restrictions or block tos blocke any cases mediated. i'm trying to get more thing in the pipeline but part of it is educating the department and community about how the programme works to be more effective to get broader numbers. >> thank you. vice president taylor. >> you hit on my question, is it a matter of educating the public. >> both. >> and the fact this is
11:18 am
available to them and potentially this is a good thing? >> it's both. surprisingly at both ends, even when we make referrals, if they don't want to do it, they don't do it. i have a whole talent pool, over 100 folks that are registered with the agency to act as mediators that we rotate and some of the things we've been doing over the past year is training all of those folks and reevaluating who our mediators are, making sure that everyone is unbiased toward whatever and they have specific training to have the best outcomes for the mediation. we've set the table and now we need people to come and sit at it. >> part of your regular reporting to us, can you include kind of facts about the mediation, the percentages of cases that go to mediation, successfully complete that process? >> the number of cases being
11:19 am
referred? >> a referral doesn't always mean that people agree. is that right? >> correct, but it will give you a number to quantify in terms of the numbers coming in and of the numbers that come in, how many get referred. yes, i can come up with stats for you, yes. >> moving on to your next part. >> i was writing notes and forgot. so next, i have a presentation that i have been talking about for awhile. on our audit. and just to make sure that everyone knows what we're talking about, in 2016, voters with prop h came up with audit specifications and requirements for the dpa and so been when i came in to the department in 2017, summer of 2017, the
11:20 am
mandate was there but the work had not commenced yet. and so, this was a big priority of mine coming in with directives from the mayor's office, from the board of soup storesupervisors and from the pe commission from that time period and the community, as well, to get that done as efficiently as possible. this is work very similar to the work the controller's office does regularly and they were whom i turned to initially. so the folks that you guys are about to hear from are from the controller's office and i just want to bring everyone up to speed. it's been awhile since i've had the focus on this audit and i wanted to present something and make sure the public knew what was going on and the commissioners, especially right now, that we have new commissioners knew what was going on with the work and had an eigh ability to get input ani think that's important and that
11:21 am
report will come out soon but i wanted to frame it so that everywhere haeveryone had a bror understanding and here it is now. without further ado, i will have steve legerty present to you and explain about what our audit programme is. >> good evening. >> good evening. tonya could not be here tonight. just by way of overview, tonight's presentation, we're going to provide an overview of the audit on behalf of the department of police accountability, on the san
11:22 am
francisco's reporting procedures for forced data. we'll go over our audit scope, audit methodology and we'll discuss what the next steps are and to allow for time for questions and answers. jusjust by way of introduction,e city services to conduct financial audits, the city auditor's activities. so the work performed is done in accordance with u.s. accountable office generally auditing sarredknownas yellow books and s
11:23 am
is done and supported with a relative quantity of evidence. we're a peer-reviewed shop which means we're meeting the standards of the usgao. we believe we will assist in improving public accountability and public performance and operation. so what brought us to this point, it was the passage of proposition g in 2016 which aamended 4.136 in addition to the police accountability and it placed the audit mandate on dpa
11:24 am
to conduct a review every two years on police officer use of force or how they handled officer misconduct. for the purposes of the first audit, we elected to focus on polygrappolice officer use of f. i think the question that has come up during the performance of the audit is how is the work we're performing different than the admin code, section 96a placing law enforcement recording requirements on the san francisco police department. it provides reports to the mayor, uses of force an arrests. just a side by side comparison of 96a and the audit work we're performing. our work differs in that we'll be assessing adequacy in the san francisco police department's collection and reporting of use of force data.
11:25 am
and tiffany and i will get into that later as we discuss these objectives of the audit. and so another question that's come up, how do we decide to focus on use of force data for the first audit and this is pretty important. the decision to audit use of force data came from a review of other similar work being performed in other jurisdictions across the nation as well as consultation with police accountability. it's important for a few reasons, that it's mandated by local and state laws and it's an indicater for the early intervention system as we covered and can be reviewed by the police academy regarding use of force and report writing.
11:26 am
>> now i'll go through what we are focusing on in our audit. so we selected calendar year 2017 so based on a few factors and one of which is in 2016, the department of justice issued a report and made 276 recollections to the police department, 58 related to use of force. in december of 2016, the police department issued a use of force revised use of force policy in the general order 5.01 providing new guidance on use of force data collection reporting and they also instituted a new form to collect data. so as steve mentioned, overall objective of our audit is to assess the adequacy an effectiveness of the police department's collection of and reporting procedures for use of force. we created subobjectives.
11:27 am
our procedure is well-designed, data complete and accurate, do the police department's use of force policies guide supervisors to review whether use of force is within policy, is available data relevant and has the police department implemented department of justice recommendations related to the use of force data reporting and collection process? as you can see, this is a chart and since we're focusing on calendar year 2017, this is from the early intervention's fourth quarter report in 2017 and as you already know, the police department's force and to get a true sense, there are 3,150 uses of force in 2017. >> objective number one to determine if use of force
11:28 am
procedures are well-designed. what this means from our perspective is, we're evaluating use of force data collection and reporting procedures and determining if they're accomplishing objectivelies and consistently applied by police officers when they're reporting use of force and by supervisors reviewing the application of use of force. other factors that we're evaluating in the course of the audit are isn' are sfpd's cultue data reported and reviewed. >> for the se second objective we're reviewing whether the data is complete and accurate and looking at incident reports and other records such as body-worn camera footage, forces underreported, overreported and whether it aligns with the
11:29 am
incident reports and whether it's consistently applied and whether non--sworn personnel are also applying the use of force collect policies consistently. (please stand by).
11:30 am
11:31 am
11:32 am
>> these are all things that i've learned, so if you tell me to audit something, i would do an audit of what i interpret things, but there is a whole standard practice, and this is what we were alluding to when we talk about the yellow pages.
11:33 am
>> yeah, the book standards. >> there's a way to do audits specifically that is very technical regardless of what the subject matter is, if it's budget, if it's whistle blowing, if it's police data, if it's use of force. and so i believe that's what voters were expecting, a full analysis of an audit, and so that's what we built, and we took those standards from the controller's office, those exacting standards, and are applying them to the use of force. so that's -- >> vice president swig: okay. and so the conclusions and the recommendations out of th -- >> okay. and so the conclusions and the recommendations are going to come from d.p.a.? >> yes. >> commissioner dejesus? >> commissioner dejesus: the audits you're using are the
11:34 am
government audit and that's the government standard? >> correct. >> commissioner dejesus: and then, you said you were doing interviews -- have you started doing the interviews -- the methodology with the officers and stuff like that? >> yes. we've conducted a number of interviews with police stations as well as nonuniformed staff that are responsible for processing the data, as well as other necessary individuals. >> commissioner dejesus: so i'm just curious. is there a method to that madness? how do you select which officers is this random or they're selected to you or are they selected from the department for you? how do you work that out? >> that depends. on the nature of the objective that they're trying to accomplish, when it comes to understanding the nature and methodology of what happens at the police station, those officers were randomly selected. >> commissioner dejesus: and then going back to commissioner
11:35 am
rir hirsch, when you're going back to the finals -- i'm just wondering if you're working with any scientists or specialists to come to any conclusions or is it just going to be, like, raw numbers? >> it will not be raw numbers. all the findings that we come to will be provided with context as well as evidence, what led us to those conclusions. the findings might not be number based. they might be qualitative and recommendations, as well. >> commissioner brookter? >> commissioner brookter: just a couple questions. timeline, that's a very simple one. >> our goal is spring 2019. >> commissioner brookter: 2019. and then what are the conversations that we stream line things to get it out in spring 2019? >> today. >> today is
11:36 am
11:37 am
report. this goes to commissioner dejesus's questions. can you talk about any examples that you're going to be doing with the department that's just not going to be raw numbers. can you give us an example of anything that you've done in the controller's office? >> yeah. i think the overall work of the controller's outdoorsity unit speaks of our ability to come into any situation, obtain an understanding of the operation and reach a conclusion hopefully that benefits the unit that we audit. the yellow book standards that i reached earlier indicate that we can't reach conclusions in a vacuum. we work with subject matter experts as appropriate to make sure that we're not coming to any conclusions erroneously. and then lastly, there's an opportunity when the report is in draft form, you know, we'll close out with the police department. they'll have the opportunity to review the conclusions that we've reached, and if they
11:38 am
think that we've reached anything or erred in our conclusion, they would bring it up and we'd review that evidence. >> commissioner brookter: no other examples. >> president hirsch: commissioner hamasaki. >> commissioner hamasaki: just a couple of questions. in section number two, is data complete and accurate. does reported data align with incident reports. and so the reported data that you're referring to there is the 96-a reports, or -- >> we've been looking at a variety of the publications that san francisco police department has published, including the e.i.s. reports to determine is everything that's reported publicly cannot be reconciles to source documentation with the police department. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. so from a variety of sources --
11:39 am
or -- >> if it helps, i am in the field doing this testing quite frequently. we're looking at two forms and the use of force log, and also early intervention system has a database where they collect that information, so we're reconciling all those different data points, in addition to any publications that they've released to see if the data collected. so for instance, let's say a particular person is estimated to be 5-11. we could see that maybe another collection of that data points, that person was 5 foot, so little data points like that are all over the form. >> commissioner hamasaki: so -- following up on the bullet point, though, are you also -- because, you know, one of the big new things that we've discussed is the rollout of body worn cameras. obviously, anybody can write whatever in an incident report.
11:40 am
are you also looking at body worn cameras to look at or review the incidents? >> yeah. great question. we are. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. and then finally, i think you said you had pretty broad access to either officers reports, body worn camera -- are there any restrictions in place that are in any way impeding your ability to do your work? sounds like a yes. >> commissioner dejesus: let us have it. >> yeah. like i said hindsight being 20/20, i think we probably would have it more conversation about what exactly needs to be redacted, what exactly -- some of the restrictions on us accessing or reviewing the incident reports are. some things, i think, are pretty obviously. for example, there's a small subset of our population that involves juvenile identifying
11:41 am
information, so kind of working through some of those challenges, how much do we really need when reviewing these, what's kind of the minimum amount that we need moving forward? >> commissioner hamasaki: are you -- if -- do you feel that in the position you're in, with the work you've done so far, that the final reports -- are you going to be able to overcome the hurdles you've at least identified thus far? >> yeah. i don't see there being any scope limitation that would exceed us from weighing in on the objectives when it comes time to issuing the final report. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. thank you. >> president hirsch: okay. thank you both very much. oh -- >> i was just going to respond to commissioner brookter's question that the work that the
11:42 am
department has done. they do have a good track history. >> can i just say, too, because i think that will help clarify. a lot of you were asking that because there were so many different data points, and the standardized operation in terms of how the reports get created, that has also been part of why these reports don't come quick, fast, and easy. it's a lot of stuff, including interviews, body worn cameras. all of this is sent out and analyzed. but i would point out, that's one of the things that makes this stand out compared to all of the other reports brought to you, it's a big deal, and it's going to be relevant to i think a lot of the things that we've been discussing for a long
11:43 am
period of time, so -- >> so you're still saying spring? >> he's still saying spring, and i'm supporting him and the work. we're saying spring. >> commissioner elias: is there anything we can do to ensure that we're on track for getting this report and that there aren't any road blocks that are going to come up to delay any further. >> i can't think of anything off the top of my head, but if something comes up, can i let the commission know? hirs >> president hirsch: okay. next item. [agenda item read]. >> president hirsch: i don't have a report. do any commissioners give a report to give? >> commissioner dejesus: i attended today a presentation by this new system -- i forgot
11:44 am
what it was -- whatface he -- what it's called. benchmark. however, they are affiliated with the university of chicago. >> president hirsch: are they really? >> commissioner dejesus: two universities. chicago was one of them. and then, paul and i attended -- they were elected officials throughout the state, it was lgbt equal conference. we represented the -- it was an all day event. >> sacramento. >> commissioner dejesus: it was all day event, and i was really glad to be there, and i was glad paul was there, as well. >> president hirsch: okay. thank you. commissioner brookter? >> commissioner brookter: yeah, just really quick. had the opportunity to run into
11:45 am
superintendent of san francisco schools, dr. matthews, and had a conversation with him about the topic with san francisco unified school district. got the opportunity to meet with director henderson and his chief of staff, sarah henderson, where we talked about the julius turman fellowship, which i'm extremely, extremely excited about. and i'm sure that director henderson will talk about that. i talked about all the great files that they had pulled apart in the office, and talked about 96-a, so i just wanted to report we are meeting at schedul scheduled. >> president hirsch: okay. next item. [agenda item read]. >> president hirsch: any items? okay. seeing one, next item.
11:46 am
>> i think we've spoken about this before, but i would like to agendaize -- i would like to get a deep dive into what the department's doing in terms of making sure that its members are accounted for with mental health support and issues. you know, from what i know, the suicide rate in america is, you know, really, really high, historically high, and it's a continuance problem for us as a nation and i know particularly in law enforcement, and so i would like to know what kind of support and services the department is providing to its members in making sure that we really support the people who protect and serve us. and so i don't know a proper meeting to agendaize that for, but maybe --
11:47 am
>> president hirsch: we'll figure it out. we'll figure it out. >> commissioner elias: yeah. >> president hirsch: okay. thank you. >> clerk: i'd also like to announce the next police commission meeting will be held wednesday, april 3, here at 5:30 p.m. the public is now invited to comment on-line items 1-a through 1-d. >> president hirsch: is there any public comment on the items we've addressed today so far? good evening. >> good evening. my name is john jones, and i want you all to know that i'm deplorable. i understood chief scott in his report to basically say to cyclists, pedestrians, drivers, that everyone should make nice in terms of cutting down on the
11:48 am
carnage in san francisco. from a law enforcement point of view, that's not very strong, and i don't think the commission should stand for it. i used to drive a cab sometime ago, and it was my observation that most people were temperamentally unfit to drive. what chief scott is struggling with is the fact that there are too many unfit drivers on the road, which is a licensing problem, not a police problem. i would suggest that this commission get up on its hind legs and say that to the state of california, that it's putting too many of the wrong people on the road. we in san francisco suffer enormously because of the incompetence of people who get
11:49 am
behind these machines and drive them recklessly and carelessly, most of them that cause injury that isn't compencible. thank you. >> president hirsch: thank you. any other comments on what we've discussed? >> my name is daniel paiz. i've been coming to these meetings since 1985. about 34, 35 years. first of all, i would like to say a few words will jeff ad -- about jeff adachi. >> president hirsch: i just want to stop you for a second. we're not at general public comment. we're just asking for comment on the items that we've already discussed. >> i didn't realize this was a public based on that, either. >> president hirsch: we'll
11:50 am
invite you back up. any other comment on items already discussed? hearing none, next item. >> clerk: line item 2, discussion to issuance of butt tin, sfpd members expectation of privacy, use of equipment and peripheral facilities, modifying department general order 10.08 use of computers and peripheral equipment. this bulletin is a reissue of bulletin 10-032 which expired on february 2, 2019. discussion and possible action. >> president hirsch: good evening, commander. >> good evening, president hirsch, commissioners, director henderson and chief scott. commander peter walsh from the staff's office. so before you, it's listed at department bull 19.051. this bulletin was in place back in 2017, and it governs that we can go into the cell phones,
11:51 am
department cell phones, computer systems, etc., that the officers and other members -- civilian members do not have a right to privacy in those items. that helps us in our bias audit. since this really moves into 10.08, the current general order, which does not necessarily state that, we are working on 10.08. i believe it's at d.h.r., so they're going to make a decision whether it goes to meet and confer. so this is a patch request to carry us over from our expiration of our last department bulletin which was good for only two years, keeping us through the adoption of the d.g.o., in order to continue our bias audit letting our members know that they do not have a right to privacy. this is just to put the underlying language, the no expectation of privacy which touches on the current 10.08 so we can continue to monitor our
11:52 am
communication devices. >> president hirsch: okay. thank you. vice president taylor? >> vice president taylor: is there any difference between what you've given us today and the last bulletin that it would replace, the one that's expiring? >> there's no -- i think it just delineates a little bit more on what we're looking at, but the overall context is the same. >> i move to adopt. >> commissioner dejesus: i have a commissi a question. hirs >> president hirsch: commissioner dejesus? >> commissioner dejesus: this is to go with the other bulletin? >> they haven't decided, does it meet and confer or come state back for adoption. whether it goes to meet and confer or comes back for us to do this. we have a timeline where the
11:53 am
department bulletin will not be in effect to the time you adopt a new 10.08. >> commissioner dejesus: but don't we have a city policy in place that you can't use city equipment for personal use? if this is all city department stuff, this is the computers, city issued electronic devices, smart phones, all this is controlled by the city, so i'm just a little confused why it's subject to meet and confer. it's been a policy throughout all the policies, i think. i could be wrong. >> i'm not saying there's going to be a meet and confer. i'm saying that d.h.r. will go through that. it could come straight back to you. this is the stopgap measure to make sure -- >> president hirsch: all the updated general orders are going to the city attorney and d.h.r. as to whether there's any responsibility. >> commissioner dejesus: if it's part of the meet and confer, we'll get a
11:54 am
notification of that? >> yes, we'll be notified. >> president hirsch: there was a motion to approve. is there a second? >> second. >> second. >> president hirsch: on the question, we need public comment, is that right, on this motion? okay. is there any public comment on the motion to approve this department bulletin? seeing none, public comment is closed. we'll -- we're ready for a vote. all in favor? any opposed? okay. it carries unanimously. >> thank you. >> president hirsch: next line item. >> clerk: line item three, general public comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department or d.p.a. personnel. under police commission rules of order, during public comment, neither police nor d.p.a. personnel nor commissioners are required to
11:55 am
respond to questions presented by the public but may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and d.p.a. personnel should refrain from entering into any debates or discussion with speakers during public comment. >> president hirsch: the floor is yours, sir. >> okay. thank you. excuse me again for my mistake. my name is daniel paiz. i've been coming here since '85, so about 34, 35 years. i wanted to say something about jeff adachi, who as the head of the public defender's office, he was a tireless and fierce defender of the rights of the accused and to ensure that they have a fair trial. checks and balances, that is what it's all about. but obviously people like gary delanis don't understand the concept. these people see people like
11:56 am
the public defender as the enemy. they see criticism as the press to be feared. when he gained his job, he confiscated copies of the press because it ran articles of chief dick conquisto in the police department. deget did he get fired? no, he kept his job and eventually became head of the police officer's association for many years. gary delanis was a dirty cop. now he's a retired dirty cop. he may be alive on the outside, but on the inside, he is diseased with his putrid hate. i wonder what people will say about him after he's dead. >> president hirsch: okay. thank you. any other public comment?
11:57 am
>> my name is john jones, and may my comments please the commission, there's a message that you get on the municipal railway. it reads as follows: get where you're going safely. keep your eyes up and your hands down while riding on muni. now, i don't have a car. i get around on muni, and a bicycle. but this is san francisco, the queen city of the west. people would die to live here. why is it that we have this kind of message on the muni? i know my answer.
11:58 am
my question is rhetorical. but the people who ride the muni are by and large the most vulnerable among us. i call this to the attention of the commission. i have no magic bullet recommendation, but the muni is incredibly important. i take it all the time, and when i heard that message, is tells me i got to look at the person next to me and the person across the aisle, maybe the person at the back of the bus, and i've got to make nasty faces at them so they don't mug me. but the truth of the matter is that it's unfortunate that this message -- we have to hear this ma message on the municipal railway. thank you. >> president hirsch: thank you. is there any other public comment? public comment is closed. next item. >> clerk: line item four,
11:59 am
public comment on all matters pertaining to item six below, closed session, including public comment on item five, vote whether to hold item six in closed session. >> so moved hirs. >> president hirsch: well, we need public comment. >> i was like, did you have some public comment? >> president hirsch: any public comment on our going into closed session? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. now we're ready for the motion. >> so moved. >> commissioner hamasaki: get it done during spring. >> president hirsch: all in favor? any opposed? all right. the motion carries. we're going into closed session. >> clerk: actually, we have line item five which leads you into your motion. >> president hirsch: oh, what is that? [inaudible] >> clerk: line item five, vote on whether to hold item six in closed session, including whether to hold in regards the
12:00 pm
attorney-client privilege, section 67.10, action. >> president hirsch: yeah. i think we did that. >> i did not hear the attorney-client privilege invoked and that's the most important piece. >> president hirsch: okay. can we go into closed session with the attorney-client privilege? >> no, no, you have to do it. >> i'll second it. >> president hirsch: we don't need public comment on this again, do . >> clerk: all right. commissioner hirsch, we are back on the record for open session, and you still have a quorum. >> president hirsch: okay. we are looking for a motion -- let's see, vote to elect to disclose. >> clerk: line item seven, vote to whether or not to disclose all items discussed


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on