tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 15, 2019 6:00pm-7:01pm PDT
we have both sworn job openings and civilian job openings. i know that when i came to work here, i didn't know that a job like mine existed. we're trying to create more visibility about what's available, and if you click on our sfpd academy page, you can see specifically -- and if you scroll down on that page, this is information about our police academy. we also have information about how to become a police officer, very, very easy information. we have information about the salary and it's just a full picture of what it takes to start a career with the sfpd. >> some of the technology around this, of course, is ada compliant. >> right. well, it is ada compliant and accessible to people with disabilities as well as everybody page on this site can be translated to multiple languages.
if you hover over the top of the page, you can see all the languages that are available to be translated. in addition, the site will be tablet and mobile friendly. so -- >> very important these days. >> yeah, obviously. so whether you have a smartphone or a tablet or a lab top or workstation, the site will look good and be accessible with those devices. >> chief, what more would you want folks to know about this website and how it fits into our strategic plan as far as offering services and responding to the community? >> we want to be more responsive. that was a pillar of being more responsive to the community we serve. i think the website, is a great step forward if in doing that. there's a lot of information that's easy to get to. i've tried to on the tablet and on mobile phone. they all work great. so it's really -- we're at an age where most people or a lot of people anyway have
smartphones. some websites, they work great on a laptop or desktop, when you go to a smartphone t doesn't work so well. this one, you can access san francisco police department and that is a really step in the right direction in terms of being more responsive, taking advantage of technology to make us a better police department. like i said, it's really exciting. i encourage the public to get on if they want to learn more about the police department. there is information that you need to know if you need to file a report. not all reports can be filed online, but many can. so try us out. >> san francisco police dot org. this is a work in progress. if they want to offer us feedback and let us know what they want, wha what should they. >> submit feedback. we are working as a continuously improving website. we have a very small team at sfpd, but it's very talented.
we will be making changes based on your feedback. we won't know what to do if you don't tell us. so please get on the site and give us your feedback. we're listening and we hope to make itet abouter. >> terrific, director, chief. thank you for tuning in, go to the website. check it out and let us know what you think. please explore it. we have a lot of data that's easily accessible now and we hope you'll find it husband used let us know how we're doing. thanks again for watching us. >> thank you. thanks for bearing with me on that. any questions from the commissiocommission? >> i guess i have a question, not all reports can be filed online. what can't be filed online. >> if it's a report, for instance, a robbery, violent crimes, those type of things, those type of reports require a sworn officer to take the report. so car break-ins, vandalism, certain amount for vandalism,
property crime, theft, those type of things can be reported online. supplemental reports, let's say your house gets broken into or your car gets broken into and then you figure out after looking into it that more property than you originally reported was missing, so you can do a supplemental. instead of going to a police station, you can actual detha actually do th. it lists the reports online that can be taken online. particularly those high-level violent crimes, robberies, shootings, we have to have a sworn person go to the scene and investigate or a person can come to the station and make the report. >> okay. thank you. >> we're ready for the next item. i guess it's still yours, chief. >> can i add that we did not have access to that video prior to the meeting and we will post it on the website tomorrow. thank you. >> okay. thank you. now we have commander teresa
yuens. >> good evening, commander. >> commissioners. president hirsch, commissioners, acting director, chief scott, safe streets for all. nothing has changed as far as our effort and enforcement. we continue to focus on vision 0 high injury corridors, increase enforcement, educate the drivers, distracted driving operations, light r which is speed enforcement operations, pedestrian and bicycle safety enforcement, special events, sunday streets, community outreach events, and collaborate with city agencies and advocates. now, the comparison between 2018, the first quarter, and
2019, you'll see these are the focus on the five. the red light, stop sign, pedestrian right-of-way, speeding, failure to yield with turning. we really try to focus on the turning aspect of enforcement due to the fact that many of our fatalities have to do with vehicles turning and hitting pedestrians. so now the citywide versus focus on the five violations, 2019 first quarter. you'll see that the different district stations and then traffic company. the very next slide which i'll turn to in one second in comparison to 2018, traffic company is now up 10% from where we were. we're hitting the goal in a commitment of over 50%. we're now at 52%. last year, we were at 42%.
this is the 2018 first quarter. so in regards to the break down for fatalities between 2018 first quarter and 2019, right now, we have 6 pedestrian deaths, two driver deaths, one bicyclist and one passenger of a vehicle. so january, there was two. february, two fatalities. march, which has been a very difficult month at six. for right now, we have exactly 14 fatalities. so when you look at the victims as far as age goes, it
absolutely stands out between the ages of 65 and 92, 30% of those fatalities. then also, 38 to 39 at 30% as well. again, it goes back to when you talk about pedestrians, turning is definitely an issue. we're working with our partners to try to come up with solutions to try to stop this from happening. a lot of enforcement, obviously, are -- because our numbers have increased to 50%, we're really looking at doing operations for pedestrians enforcement and what we do is we send a decoy out to cross the street, and if someone doesn't stop, then officers will pull them over and give them a citation. so in addition to the presentation, i also wanted to give you some numbers. so march was distracted driving month. so that we made that a priority, really cell phones as all of us
know and we've discussed here before, is right now traffic company we -- for march, it was 146 citations. citywide, it was 509 citations for distracted driving. overall -- i'm sorry, march is 227. but overall, traffic in may alone had 312. citywide was 509 for cell phones. also, we highlight the warnings that we give, which is about education. so our responsibility and commitment is about education and enforcement. so in this time period for this quarter, we have given out 1334 warnings, which means officers have chosen not to give citations and instead have that conversation about why the violation -- the bad behavior needs to stop. that's it. do you have any questions?
>> any questions from commissioners? >> commissioner hamasaki. >> looking at slide three, the 2018 to 2019q1 statistics, why does it seem like in 2018, the numbers are outside of the failure to yield are so high? what's the reason for that drop-off, i guess? >> slide three? >> correct. >> so failure to yield 2018 is 959. then 2019 is 1121. are we looking at -- >> he's asking you about the other bars. >> with the exception. >> there's been a huge drop it looks like. >> i don't know if i'm reading this wrong. >> i think you're -- >> looking at slide three, it looks like speeding is not even
half of 2018, you know. stop sign is down by 700, 800. >> because we focused on the turning aspect of it. our operations -- we're trying to work with the district stations as well as our own officers at traffic company and focus on the turning. it's been an issue, and it's something we talked about a lot in vision 0. so we're trying to come up with different ideas, but we've really focused on that turning aspect of it. >> do you have adequate staffing at this time to properly carry out the mission of safe streets? >> well, i always say more is better, but no. we're doing a good job. we have a class going through right now. one sergeant and 8 officers. we're hoping that at least we get 6 officers out of that. i do believe that all 8 are definitely capable of passing. so that will be a great addition to the numbers as well, as well
as our ongoing operations with the district station. >> thank you. >> commissioner. >> really quick, i have a question along the same line. i love charts and colors. i wanted to summarize this for myself so i can digest it. so when i'm reading this, it says what i'm seeing is that from a citywide focus, violations have gone down from last year in q1. >> are we looking at four? >> i'm still looking at three. i'm saying overall, violations have gone down outside of cellular. fatalities have gone up in q1 versus last year. that is due to the failure for folks to yield when turning which is what we're focusing on now? >> yes. >> chief, you had a response. >> oh, yes. thank you. i was just going to add to what commander says. part of the issue, too, with the
reduction was in our traffic company. we got down with the solo motorcycle officers in terms of the officers that were deemployable. we are less than 40. i think 44 on the team. we had promotions in september of last year. we've put one class through, which increased our strength by ten, i believe. >> yes. >> and we have another class going through right now. with the traffic company being really the -- carrying the lion's share of that work, it's important we stack that unit back up. that's what we're trying to do. that accounts for some of the differences in the numbers. as we staff up, we'll see that increase. i think this year, so far, we're trending up. first quarter we were doing, but we're trending up since then. >> commissioner elias. >> thank you. so the idea of doing decoys, how would that work? it would have one officer
dressed -- as a pedestrian -- dressed undercover pretending to be a pedestrian and then having other officers around to cite the individuals? >> yes. see the violation and then citation. >> would there be other officers to protect the undercover officer who is pretending to be the pedestrian? >> we usually do it -- well, i don't want to say, but as far as the numbers, but we usually have a fair amount for safety purposes. >> a fair amount of other officers? >> yes. >> so an idea, instead of doing the decoys, would maybe be to use all of these other officers to put them at different areas to patrol rather than sort of centralizing them in one area and using several officers to cite this individual using the
decoy? >> i understand what you're saying. so in order to really do the education and enforcement part, we really have to do these operations because i do understand what you're saying. high visibility versus operations. high visibility is great because that deters people from bad behavior. but when we do the operations, then they get cited. the enforcement part is a huge part of that. you know, you're able to have conversations, you know, when you're doing these operations with individuals as well as the community seeing us doing the operation. that also is an education piece that is important. but i do understand what you're saying. we do try to go towards high visibility most of the time. but when we look at certain intersections -- and i know all of you have seen them -- some of them you really need to do an operation to hit home that bad behavior is not going to be -- is not okay in these areas due to high volume of pedestrians. >> right. well, wouldn't the other officers be able to cite as well, meaning if this decoy
operation requires six officers to do this one operation and the result is one person cited versus these six officers at different locations being able to cite or observe bad behavior at six different locations and you have six citing officers versus the one that results from the decoy, i guess -- i just would be interested in the numbers to see whether this taking six officers and creating a decoy operation is just as fruitful as, perhaps, having these officers patrol in various areas and be more visible and cite that way. >> i didn't say six. i will tell you that they don't get just one. we're talking about more like 10 to 20 citations. like i said, it isn't just about the individuals getting cited. it's about the community that's seeing us out there doing the work and making them feel safer that we're doing this work. like i said, i do understand what you're saying, but they better not come back with one
citation. we really do a lot of work with this. >> vice president taylor. >> just on that point, kind of in your experience in doing these decoy operations, have you found them to be successful as deterrent mechanisms? i guess commissioner elias' points, but there are lots of streets in san francisco. i would imagine that having one officer on every street might be difficult and so i'm wondering kind of what you've seen in terms of bang for your buck in the decoy operations and whether or not they lead to or have a deterrent effect. >> i do -- from my experience, i do think that it does have an effect. we're able to push it out to the communities that we're out in their districts doing this work. we don't just pick locations. this is from complaints from supervisors, from the community itself, from mta, from my officers' own observations of dangerous locations.
so once you start doing that, you're kind of sending a message that the tncs, everybody needs to slow down and pay attention to pedestrians. do i think that we need more? yes, i do. and i hope that once we build our numbers at district stations, that we're able to partner more and do more of this work. >> commander, there's been a real spike in fatalities this year. it's just hard -- i think it's hard for us to understand what's happening. i'm wondering if you have a sense of what's going on. >> everyone is in a rush. everyone -- there's a lot of people that they made really bad judgment call in trying to get to where they're going quickly. some people are distracted. it's -- everyone needs to slow down, whether it be you're in a vehicle, when you're crossing the street, please look. if you're a cyclist, stop at the
stop signs and the lights so you don't become a fatality. i don't have a good answer, but the turning is something that we're definitely discussing a lot with mta. >> commissioner hamasaki. >> thank you. so you just brought up tncs. i saw an article i think in the chronicle a few days ago about 40 or some percent of our traffic, new traffic, is a result of tncs, including lyft and uber. have you determined if that has been a factor in the increased dangerousness and fatalities in our city? >> i would not say that there's a very small portion in the last two years of on the fatality side. i can't speak to the collision side. i would say that in -- from february to march, when we did the enforcement in the red lanes, 300 -- over 300
citations, and over 50% of those were tncs. so not stopping -- those numbers aren't included in our monthly numbers of citations, but some of those are not yielding to pedestrians. >> thank you. >> thank you, commander. anything else, chief, from your part of your presentation? >> no. we have commander pete walsh on the electronic audit. >> good evening, commander. >> good evening. good evening, president hirsch, commissioners, chief scott, department director, commander peter walsh here to present the
first quarter 2019 bias audit on potential bias that might be found on electronic devices and through their communications. just to reiterate, the audits are limited to devices that the department owns and not any member's personal device. the audits do capture personal devices sending in to department servers, phones, and other telecommunications. all members are aware that the department is monitoring electronic communication and that they are audited. it's specifically laid out in department general order 10.08, use of computers and peripherals. 19051 which you approved, sfpd expectation of privacy and there is an internal affairs bureau order that guides these types of investigations. so three systems that are audited are the following: california law enforcement telecommunications system, which is clets, department e-mail, and
department cell phones. so i'll explain how each one of these items or systems are audited and the results for the first quarter. the level two clets communications system was established -- a program was established which searches all entries made into the system. it's always running. it doesn't have to be initiated by the department. if a member uses one of the identified worst, a hit is generated and it's automatically sent to internal affairs. every hit is reviewed by an internal affairs investigator and if it is a hit of bias or perceived bias, it's launched into a full-fledged investigation. this has been running since december of 2016. so the first quarter results from january 1st to march 31st for clets were 62 hits from the program. after review by iad, no -- none of them were determined to be bias oriented.
next, the department e-mail. all e-mails sent and received internally and externally are audited using a word list. it's passive meaning it's always running and sends the alerts to the ia egg havers investigators. if it contains a word, it will be investigated. those are saved and maintained on the city's server. the staff analyzes, again, every hit to determine whether or not it's potentially bias, and they would be investigated if that determination takes place. the first quarter for department e-mail from january 1 to march 31st were 256 hits returned from the program. after review by iad members, none of the hits were determined to be bias oriented. lastly, our text messaging, which is run every 30 days because our phones are provided
by at and an tt and they controe searches. they have a word list. staff is trained to conduct audits using this program. every 30 days a search is done using established word lists, additional terms can be used as well if we pick up a new term that we were unfamiliar with or that wasn't on the list. for data not available on local systems, the cellular provider will be contacted, and they will determine if they can find more information on their servers. again, everything is analyzed by iad, and any hits that are determined to be potentially bias will be investigated immediately. all false positive hits are saved by at&t. so we maintain all of these lists so we can go back and check and make sure we're doing it correctly. so for january 1st to march 31st, there were 45 hits returned from the program. all 45 were determined not to be
biased. note, we removed four words that were repeatedly flagged but never led to a bias investigation. we keep all removed words on file. that is why i think you'll notice we have a lot less words than typically or hits because these four words were a substantial part. in the past i've told you that words that we looked for in context sometimes generated enormous amount of hits and they were completely irrelevant to anything bias. but because a word can be used in a context as opposed to a stand alone, we would search for them. so lastly, i want to -- i always do this and i get quizzical looks from the commission and i'm probably not explaining it right. i'm going to put this up for a little clarification of why we get so many hits sometimes.
so some of the things -- so stick is a fictitious word we all agreed on. the computer hilton a word that might be completely trivial and used in every day. so i highlighted stick become sticker and so we get a lot of words where the ep teg, the bias word is in a word that actually is used by everybody all the time. so we get a lot of that in the clets system which has an older method of searching. >> what's the way of dealing with that? >> that's a state system. that's just the way the string search is run. >> those words are kicking up? >> that's why when we say we don't have any -- a lot of it is due to this. >> vice president taylor. >> i know when you've -- hello.
>> hello. >> when you've made this presentation, we've asked you -- we've tried to get to you tell us what the words are and you refuse. i think rightfully so because you wouldn't want to alert officers as to what the bad words are that you're searching for. i won't bother asking you that question. i am curious, though, to know, in terms of the audit, are you hitting all kind of -- for example, policish cell phones. are you sitting all officers or just a sampling? the same thing with e-mails and -- >> it's everything. >> okay. >> so any electronic communication on any three of those platforms. again, the cell phone is different because it's run by a provider. we have to do an activer sa much. we do that every 30 days. it goes back years if we needed to retrace our steps. as far as the words, i've invite commissioners, if you want to come down, we'll show it to you. we're always changing it. i said this i think about a year ago. so maybe if some of you weren't
here, we do use sites such as urban dictionary because we don't all keep up natural with some of those. it is not safe for work. please don't use that at your workplace. but we use things like that so that we're not just sitting on a set of words as things change as people -- language changes, we try to keep up with it. >> thank you. next item, please. >> line 2b, dpa director's report. report on recent dpa activities and announcements. dpa's report will be limited to a brief description of dpa activities and announcements. commissioner discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for future meeting. >> good morning. president hirsch and members of
the commission, chief scott and members of the public. i have a few reports. we've received 256 complaints compared to 206 at the same time last year which is a 26% increase in the number of complaints received by dpa. closure this year is also up by 27% closing 229 cases compared to 180 cases at the same time last year. our pending case is up 23% to 317 cases compared to 258. so far this year, we sustained 31 cases compared to 11 last year. we have 33 cases over nine months, 186 which are told. in regards to mediation, we mediated 10 cases so far this year compared to five cases last year. we have one outreach event where dpa staff attended the community
meeting. if the public has any questions, the investigator is the in audience ho can -- who can answer some questions. that concludes my report. >> any questions from the commissioners? >> line 2c, commissioner 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 future commission meeting. commission president's report, commissioner's reports. >> the report i have is that tomorrow, the consultant's report will be issued as their first interim report on the progress being made by the department in implementing the usdoj department of justice reform measures. the california department of justice will issue, i believe, a statement with that report, but we're expecting that out on
thursday. any commissioner reports? commissioner mazzucco. >> i know we have ms. brown here, but i want to thank captain dangler, and sawyer who hosted an event for mothers whose sons and daughters had been killed in violent crime. i think it's very special of our officers, those two captains and lieutenant to do that. i saw that and i was impressed because we hear from ms. brown. we'll hear from her again about the anguish she goes through on birthdays and mother's day. our officers never forget. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner elias. >> i want to let people know we had a working group back up and running after a long high at is. everyone did come together. we made some progress in terms of sort of venting frustrations and being able to put everything on the table so that we can move forward. from this point forward, it's my
understanding that the bias group will meet from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. and i encourage the public and any other individuals interested to please come and participate in the working group. >> thank you, commissioner brookter. >> i wanted to state that last week, actually since commissioner hamasaki talked about the right to free press, i got the opportunity to attend the 75-year anniversary of the sun reporter, which is a newspaper that's run through african-american communities here in san francisco. it was just a very well attended event. i saw chief there a little bit later on that evening. so california state senator kamala harris was there. overall, it was a great event to be at and to attend on behalf of the commission. so that's good. >> thank you. vice president taylor. >> just a couple of things. the bias working group was a productive meeting. i wanted to note that cal doj was there. not only do you have the
stakeholders and commissioners and sfpd, but cal doj was present and has been involved. the other thing i wanted to say is not so much of a report as it is a thank you to the commission staff. you guys are the reason why we're able to have these meetings and are able to keep the trains on the rails, and you get very little thanks and very little praise. i just wanted to make sure that you know that we really appreciate you. >> thank you. i'll second that, too. >> thank you. okay. next line item, please. >> line 2d commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration of future commission meetings, action. >> any items. >> we have our next meeting on wednesday, may the 5th back here in. >> june. >> pardon me. june the 5th, 2019.
pardon me. back here in room 400, city hall at 5:30 p.m. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> now we're going to call for a public comment on anything pertaining to items 2a through 2d. >> public comment on the items that have been addressed. >> good evening. my name is magic altman. chief scott cites the importance of the public trust. this is ironic since the public trust was completely broken by attacking a long time member of the journalism community who even has the heart to abstain sfpd press pass. taking a sledgehammer to the door of a journalist is shocking and chilling especially since the source of the leak is within the police department itself. this action is appalling, illegal, and frankly, a lazy way
to go about an investigation. your problem is within the rank and file of your own department. have you searched your internal e-mails for who leaked it? you might want to ask the members of the police officers association who are the most hateful towards jeff adachi. i've read their journal continuously and there were numerous attacks in that journal against even jeff adachi living in a neighborhood that was too rich for someone in the public trust. i mean, the attacks have been a scene. the entire department needs retraining in the shield law. it was passed by legislatures in 1935. it was affirmed by 70% of the vote in 1980 by the people. 70% of the vote. it is obvious that the intent of
the leak was to defame our beloved and courageous public defender. chief, i'm appalled. the lack of respect, the cruelty to the family of the deceased, specifically his wife and the community at large is frankly disgusting. many politicians were blinded by their desires to remedy the situation and seem to have a memory lapse about freedom of speech. with the white house declaring a war on journalists and claiming they're the enemy of the people, we need to really protect our journalists here in san francisco. your entire department needs a training in the shield law so that the press is never used as a scapegoat for a smear campaign that came from the police department itself. and let us not forget that the reporter now has his equipment destroyed, his house messed up, his business put in danger, for
what? to cover up, again, the source of this problem which is within the police department itself. find out who did this. >> any other public comment? >> good evening, commissioners and chief scott. my name is dr. kerr. i write for the west side observer. the rate on a freelance journalist's home threatens investigative journalism and journalism as a whole. on the one hand, we have the california shield law that protects journalists from being forced to reveal their sources, and on the other hand, we have this raid with guns, handcuffs, sledgehammer, and battering ram. i appreciate the few questions that the commissioners asked,
but i'm surprised that you accepted the same response to all of your questions, namely, the department, quote, followed the appropriate legal process. how do we know? how does the commission verify and ensure that the police department is acting lawfully and appropriately? we need your help. thank you. >> good evening. my name is bill snyder. i'm a freelance journalist. i'm an officer of the pacific media workers guild. i won't repeat with the previous two speakers had to stay about the nature on the raid of the apartment and office. i certainly agree with it. i just wanted to make a few points. may i ask the chief a question? is that appropriate?
>> well, you can raise a question. he doesn't necessarily have to answer it. >> i understand. chief, can you explain to us why the fbi was involved in this raid? >> i suspect that's not a question that can be answered right now. >> let's see if the chief can answer it. chief, can you speak to that? >> i cannot speak to that. the fbi did put out a statement. you're welcome to reach out to them. >> were they there at the request of the sfpd or the district attorney's office? >> public comment is not supposed to be a give-and-take. >> fair enough. >> it's your chance to comment. >> thank you, mr. president. i understand. the point that i think needs to be made -- and this has been bandieded about in the press is whether or not a free lance journalist like brian or me for that matter is really a journalist. i think many of you have read or have heard that in the last ten years, literally tens of
thousands of journalists and hundreds of newspapers and websites have gone out of business. freelance journalists exist, well, one to make a living, but i think more importantly in the larger sense, to fill the void. our communities depend on trained, responsible journalists. these days, many of us are freelancers. i mean, i myself have worked for a number of national and state news organizations. many now i work for myself. that does not make me any less of a journalist. an issue has been raised that he was selling the report that he obtained and that somehow that makes -- that was inappropriate or somehow that makes it not an act of journalism. i would disagree with that. the very basis of all journalism is to sell labor.
a freelance journalist like myself or like him, we have numerous clients. we tend to write stories or make videos, and we then sell that work for money. even a staff reporter of the chronicle or a television station is working for money. they're paid to collect news and in some cases, to turn it into a video or into a story. so the entire issue about whether or not it was appropriate for him to be selling the news, the report that he obtained, is entirely beside the point and is a red herring. >> thank you. i just -- thank you. i wanted to just make a comment. that is, i have not heard anybody on this commission question as to whether you or anybody else whose considered a stringer is a reporter.
probably more importantly, we don't know what's going to come of this. we don't know, for example, although we hope that whoever leaked the material that ultimately started this will be identified and there may be disciplinary charges brought against that officer. if that's the case, it comes to this commission, and we see in judgment. we also don't know what will happen with this last raid. if there was wrongdoing there and it's identified and there are disciplinary matters brought, we don't know what was in the affidavit. we don't know what was in the search warrant. we don't know how it was carried out. if that ultimately leads to an investigation and disciplinary charges, that also will come back to the commission. so we're not in a position right now to investigate, to involve ourselves in the investigation, and probably to comment really. just so you -- >> thank you. >> your time is up. thank you. >> any other public comment?
>> hi there. brad edwards, i would note that chief scott did say -- it appeared he was referring do the journalist when he described the journalist's activity as illegal distribution of a confidential report. so someone here did say that. i know he's not a floating commissioner. >> i'm sorry. i understood him to be referring to the officer who may have distributed it. >> then i would appreciate that if that was the case. i would love to hear that clarification if that's truly the case. the context appeared to me, it might be worth a clarification to be made from perception of myself and i believe many people that's just appeared to be stone retaliation. there are other items. the other folks addressed that very well. unrelated, we have a traffic company presentation. good stuff. that's something that makes our
city safer. i wonder if -- i mean, do you have to be a beat cop pushing a radio card for three or five years before you can do that? is that also something you have to do if you wanted to be a school resource officer? is this our system where you have to be -- to do any type of -- have any type of position that are duties sfpd as a whole fulfills, many of these are not duties that one needs the same set of skill set that one might if they are, say, a beat cop in the tenderloin addressing open air drug sales. there might be other duties that are very different. i'd be hopeful we would maybe consider this. >> thanks. >> any other public comment? okay. public comment is closed.
next item, please. >> line three, discussion and possible action to recommend that the board of supervisors adopt a resolution authorizing the chief of police to accept and expand an in kind district of 768 units of naloxone valued at $57,600 through the naloxone distribution project which is funded by the substance amuse and mental health services administration and administered by the department of health care services to combat opioid overdose related deaths in california. discussion and possible action. >> thank you. do we have anybody presenting on this? this is just an item for a motion and approval. >> so moved. >> second. >> on the question, any discussion? commissioner elias. >> i just wanted to thank the organization for making this donation. i know that it is a very vital resource that the police department needs and something that the officers use to sort of
save lives. now, with the change in policy where officers are able to carry on their person a bottle of narcan and save someone's life is really outstanding. so i do want to thank the organization for providing this because these are not cheap, and theravite al tool that officers need to save the community -- some lives in the community. >> thank you. i think we need public comment on this. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion and a second. we can have a vote now, please. >> do we have all in favor? aye. any other posed? the motion passes unanimously. >> next item. >> discussion and action to revise dgo2.04 complaints against officers and mou between dp a and subpoenaed or take other action, if necessary.
>> this was a general order negotiated for a couple years and it was before us before. it is back again. the california department of justice has suggested some language which i think we've seen before and it now appears. i wanted to ask the deputy director,s this the document that was negotiated over a couple years between the dpa and the department. is that right. >> that's correct. >> and there was a give and take. i don't know that either side got everything they wanted, but ultimately, this is what you folks agreed to? >> correct. >> okay. then i would ask for a motion to approve 2.04. >> so moved. >> on the question, any discussion? any public -- i'm sorry. >> i thought there was an issue with respect to the viewing of the investigation. was that issue resolved?
>> it hasn't come back. we were waiting for additional noting la. language. i have talked to the chief and the dpa. this is on the mou that's attached. >> i thought we were talking about 2.04 right now. >> and the mou part of this motion. >> can you repeat that, please. >> the mou between the dpa and the department, is this part of one motion. >> it should be two separate motions. >> two motions. >> two motions? so the motion right now is just on the general can order? >> motion was for both. and it was seconded for both. >> well, i mean, i don't think that we should be doing two policies under -- i mean, if they're separate issues under each one, it just seems cleaner to do them as -- >> it's up to the commission. >> let's take the 2.04 first. is there a motion.
>> well, i guess my question -- >> let's get a motion and a second. >> okay. now the discussion on the dgo. the reference you're making is in the mou having to do with the viewing of the final report. paragraph 6 in -- it's roman numeral four, a6. we're not there yet. we're on the 2.04. any discussion on 2 .04? hearing none, we need public comment on that. any public comment on our adoption of general order 2.04? this has to do with complaints against officers and how they will be addressed by the dpa and
internal affairs. hearing none, let's call for the vote. i'm sorry. we've got a public comment. >> i'm split over the two apparently. i'm from the public defender's office, and in reviewing the mou and proposed general order, two things struck me just on the general order right now. >> we separated those. >> i have to find which one that was and be sure i'm on the right page. they're both in the mou. sorry. i'll be right back. okay. >> we'll get to you in a minute. >> any public comment on 2.04?ia
vote then. >> we're going to have a vote on whether or not to adopt general order 2.04. we have a motion. all in favor. >> aye. >> it passes unanimously. this is a memo of understanding between the department and dpa. essentially, outlining the working relationship pursuant to 2.04. is there a motion to adapt? we'll get to the discussion after we have a motion. >> so moved. >> second. >> okay. now for discussion. >> oh. >> gotcha, john. >> acting director of dpa, so when this came before us before there was an issue regarding whether or not the findings and recommendations or conclusions would be forwarded to dpa. is that still an issue in this current version? >> it's in that current version. yes. it is still in there. >> okay. and so is this the language that
dpa wants it or didn't want? >> well, dpa's position has always been that we're entitled to the conclusions and recommendations from the internal affairs division and that our role as civilian oversight is reviewing the conclusions and recommendations as part of our investigation and findings. however, we understand that the department and many of the commissioners do not agree with us. ultimately, we believe that the results of the revised 2.04 and the mou will benefit the community. >> okay. so this is -- this is the one that president hirsch referenced section 4 dpa procedure, subsection a. dpa investigations. so the dpa sends their completed
investigations to ied. you should not receive the iad investigative conclusions until you've received -- until they've received your report. is that accurate? >> correct. >> i guess it was director henderson who was here last time, his feeling was, as you just expressed it -- and i don't recall what the -- does somebody have any sense of what the opposition to that is? >> yeah. i can tell you what it is. >> okay. >> the reason that the department was getting or is getting the dpa's completed investigation is ultimately it goes to the chief who makes the final decision as to how the department and how he will charge an individual officer in
discipline. the reason it doesn't flow the other way is that dpa is really an independent entity. they're an independent civilian review board providing oversight and i think the public is best served, the position that was taken was that the public is best served if the dpa comes to their own conclusion without any influence from the department, and after they do, they will get the department's recommendation. then the two groups sit down together and they try to work out and see if they can come to a single agreement as to how to charge somebody. but before that happens, it's my belief that the public is best served if the dpa, which is set up really to speak and review on behalf of the public, acts independently and is not influenced by anything the department did. that was the general thinking. >> well, i guess i have concerns because the dpa -- i remember we had quite a discussion about
this last time. as the acting director expressed, their oversight role includes the potential investigation of the conclusions and recommendations of iad. so, you know, i think there's been a fair amount of criticism that's been raised about whether or not the iad is actually doinr in some occasions protecting favored officers who are accused of misconduct. so i think it's backwards to deprive them of their role as a civilian oversight agency and not allow them to actually review the department in the manner that they're required to under the city charter. i don't think that -- if there's another justification, i just --
it's kind of -- no offense, but the public best served, their role is an independent agency. they have oversight over the department just as we do. i would balk if we were denied the ability to do our jobs by being denied access to reports and conclusions. >> i guess i just don't follow the logic because they're not denied it. we just want them to come to their opinion and conclusion first. they then get the police department's analysis and final report and if they don't agree with it, they move their report forward. they're not bound by what the department does. it's just -- should they be influenced by what the department does before they come to their own conclusion, they get it. they get to disagree with it. they get to try to persuade the department to come around to their view. if they can't, they have every right to move forward. they're not relinquishing any right under the charter at all.
>> to me, this sounds more like the debate we had last week about whether the release of 1421 officer misconduct reports should be a collaborative effort between the dpa and the department and whether the dpa is allowed to act in their independent oversight role here. >> right. >> to my sense, like -- i don't know what the down side is of allowing them to do their job, review the conclusions, and determine whether or not on top of the potential misconduct, whether or not iad is -- you know, obviously we wouldn't want to see this to be the case, but potential collaborating misconduct that may have occurred in the department. >> that's exactly what this allows. i don't follow, john. that's exactly what this will allow them to do. that's what they're doing now. i'm responding. i know there is a queue. commissioner elias. >> i also agree with
commissioner hamasaki in the sense that this is a civilian oversight body and it seems sort of counterintuitive to have an oversight body of the police department in a position where they're continually collaborating especially when it comes to charges of discipline. your comment they should work out a single agreement to see what to charge, i don't -- i think that the police department has the ability to charge discipline cases and so does dpa. oftentimes they may not agree on what charges to file. >> right. >> but i don't think that they should be in a position where they are forced to have to sort of collaborate when their whole job is to make sure that they provide the community's oversight of the police department. i don't understand why iad needs dpa's report in order to do its job. >> vice president taylor. >> yeah. so we talked about this last time. there are two issues that no one has yet mentioned. first was that historically, the
problem was that dpa or occ was seen as a kind of rubber stamp of what iad did. so it's danger in providing conclusions from an independent body was that dpa would then not do the work required to make their own independent judgment. that has historically been a problem we wanted to solve or mid gate. then the second and probably most important thing is that dpa's authority is based on a rule, and no one in this hearing, no one the last time we talked about this could provide any actual basis in the statute that gives them the authority, that dpa's job is to investigate the investigator. it is not what they are tasked with doing. they are given complaints by the public that go to underlying events that happened, and they investigate those complaints. it is not dpa's job to investigate ia. that's another reason why we don't want them to have ia's
conclusions. they are not permitted that under the statute. we looked at the statute late of last time. no one could point to a single provision. nobody could point to a provision saying they were. the record speaks to itself. we can go back and find it. more importantly, it's important that these two bodies operate independently. so people aren't getting each others conclusions. dpa is absolutely entitled to all of the underlying reports as to the complaint they're investigating, but it is not their job to investigate ia. that is absolutely not what they're tasked with. the commission investigates the department. dpa investigates complaints that are brought to their attention. >> chief scott. >> i just want to speak on a couple issues. i would ask commander walsh who has been deeply involved in this process as well. just for commissioner elias, one thing i want to clarify is, these are dpa investigations so they have to forward them to the department. these aren't -- there's two issues