Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  May 15, 2019 7:00pm-8:01pm PDT

7:00 pm
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.
7:01 pm
one is concurrent investigation and the other one, the first part of number six, completed dpa investigations, non concurrent. we have the dpa recommendation for me to be able to make a decision, and that is, i don't think, the issue here. the issue is on the concurrent investigation. commander walsh that's been involved. i want him to clarify a few things. >> thank you. this is a really small subset of investigations where the public makes a complaint and the chief at the same time says, i need to know what happened. so, for instance, we may get a viral video that goes out. dpa needs a complaint to start that process. generally, generally we're ahead of dpa. the chief says i need to know what happened. ia launches that investigation. dpa is working on the same investigation based on the complaint from a citizen or another person. the chief has ordered ia to do
7:02 pm
it. as dpa will get everything ia develops as the investigation goes on. what we're talking about is when we do have concurrent investigations, that they get our conclusions and recommendations when they're done. simply, they base on all the facts they've gathered themselves independently plus our additional facts that we gathered, and there are times where dpa has more information. witnesses go to dpa that don't come to the police department. at the end, you would -- if we don't -- we're not collaborating. we're not arguing. we compare our charges because ultimately, if it's a commission case, you're not going to hear the same case on the same facts being presented by two different prosecutors, one from dpa and one from ia. sometimes information they have, we didn't have. they have a stronger charge. all it is is at the end of the day, on the small, small
7:03 pm
subsets, that they -- when we investigate the same incident, that at the end, we will give it to them when they're done with their investigations. then whether it goes to the commission, whether it's a chief's level, instead of trying two cases, they are combined. we've done this in the past. i cannot talk in open session, but you have had cases where we've collaborated, for lack of a better word, where we had some charges that they thought were better. they had charges that we thought were better. they came for discipline to the commission. the end result, what do we each have. >> you've also had indicated where you ultimately disagree. >> correct. >> and we get the dpa charges to us. >> correct. >> we've had cases like that. okay. commissioner hamasaki. >> commander walsh, let me follow up with that. is your view the same as commissioner taylor just expressed that dpa is unable to come to their own conclusions or
7:04 pm
corrupt or -- i mean -- >> i know it's not my turn, but i said no such thing. >> you're going to be influenced by your report in a way that they're going to be so impressed by your conclusions they're not going to be able to do their job. do you have that concern? >> the position of the department, which, again, has been going on for a few years and particularly on this, is not that in the sense of they can't do their job. but come to an independent conclusion. if you are looking, you may have confirmation bias. you may have the executory evidence that we don't have or vice versa. so by getting the test answers for -- if i could use an analoge reading everything through. i'm not -- i do not -- i think they do excellent investigations. we talk. i talked to sara hawkins and
7:05 pm
department director balt czar. there has to be some talking between two agencies when you have the same exact cases. >> right. i guess -- i mean, i just don't view dpa that way. i mean, i understand it may be historically -- it wasn't the most robust agency. i don't think we can set our policies with the idea that because in the past, they were not as competent as they have become under director henderson's leadership that they should be denied -- i think you used a great analogy, giving themingivingthem the answers. the role is to make sure nobody cheated on that test. right? >> i have to answer that two ways. i will give you an answer, first, if there was a complaint about the ia investigation, a citizen -- it would be a citizen who says that ia investigation was not done right for whatever reason. i gave you a witness.
7:06 pm
you didn't interview or whatever. they would get the complaint to investigate the investigators. that would be neglected duty if i failed to go out and find a witness to a potential case. they are getting everything the investigators in that concurrent case, throughout the investigation. we get requests. they say we want to see the investigation. we want to see, do you have the video? we've got requests for the body camera. they're getting all the information. they're just not a at that particular moment getting the conclusions and recommendations. >> there's nobody -- i mean, how does somebody generate a complaint when all of this is confidential and they don't know what's going on within the investigation? the only people to se see that d be dpa and that's the only way a complaint can be generated. isn't that accurate. >> we don't deal with the public. if i use the viral video, the
7:07 pm
order to investigate is coming from the chief of police. it is not coming from the person, the citizen out in the street who says, i filmed this video, went viral, and i want these officers investigated. so it's not their investigation. it was at the direction of the chief. it could be a commanding officer at a station who said i believe my officers need to be investigated, chief or ia. they write a memo and write the thing up. it starts at ia. so it's not that the citizen is being -- what sometimes happens, what sometimes happens is that s against ia actually come -- officers wait until they retired, and they make a complaint against ia that the case was investigated wrongly. i get letters from, you know, dpa saying, sustained, not sustained, unfounded, proper
7:08 pm
conduct. the ia investigation is kind of a different animal in that sense. it could be the same incident, but it is not the public process. that's what -- that's why dpa exists is to get that strata of people in the community citizens to come forward and say, i believe the police in this situation did x, y, and z. ia is -- >> vice president taylor. >> just a couple of things. the first is that especially today, more than ever, words matter. what you say matters. people hear what you say. at no point during this hearing, at any point did i call dpa corrupt or spineless. i would never use those words. i don't believe those things. so i want to be very clear that the way that you phrase things is the way that people will remember you. and i've known both paul
7:09 pm
henderson and sara hawkins for over a decade and not only do i not believe that about em this, i would not say them about them. so that was wrong, and wrong on many levels. the second thing i want to say is that, you know, we are not writing policies for dpa as it stands right now. that's not what a policy does. it's not for the guy you like who is in the chair today and who you trust who is in the chair today. everyone at this die as knows this issue with occ where at least there was a perception they were a rubber stamp for ia. everyone at this dias wants to keep that from happening, whether it's paul henderson or someone you don't trust who is not as diligent. the point in creating policy is that you create a policy that works for a timeless en tight, for a timeless agency like dpa. >> commissioner elias. >> thank you. so commander walsh, if you were
7:10 pm
to receive dpa's report, ia wouldn't stop investigating their case. right? >> if it wasn't complete on a concurrent investigation? correct. >> they would do their job until they had completed their investigation and closed out the file or came to a conclusion. right. >> correct. >> and so mr. balances sar, if they have an ongoing investigation and they get ia's file before their investigation is closed they don't just stop their investigation. they continue their investigation until it's closed. right? >> us? >> yes. >> we continue with our investigation. >> if you got ia's report and your investigation is still going and you need ia's report and you read it but there's still investigation left for you to do, you don't just stop just because you got ia's report, do you? >> no. the ia file is just one of the many evidence that we gather before we make a conclusion. >> you still continue your investigation because you have a
7:11 pm
job to do and a duty to thoroughly investigate the case. right. >> yes. >> i still don't understand. if both of these -- if it's a cannot current investigation and the san francisco police department and dpa are doing it, why is it -- why can't dpa or ia get each others files? if you have a duty to -- >> they get the file. >> well, even the conclusions. the conclusion -- just because you have a conclusion doesn't mean that ia is going to stop doing their investigation if they aren't done and vice versa. dpa isn't going to stop doing their investigation because they have ia's conclusion. so that's the thing that's really, i think, troublesome because even if you get a conclusion, if you received a conclusion from dpa, that's not going to stop the police department from conducting its investigation and vice versa. so i don't understand why there's a requirement or why you're requiring that dpa will
7:12 pm
not or shall not receive ia's conclusions until after they have seen dpa's. that just doesn't make sense to me. >> let me just ask for commissioner. >> the level of professionalism is incredible. the investigators and attorneys that have been hired have done an excellent job. there was a point where people actually thought when they were the occ, that they would reach decisions without facts, without evidence, without a legal basis and for political reasons to the opposite. so i have to tell you, we have a very professional organization in the dpa. i have full faith and confidence if them. they'll do what they need to do. inherent in this questioning is disdain or distrust from the internal affairs division. the officers assigned to that division are put there for a reason. they have the highest integrity.
7:13 pm
two of them are sitting in front of you right now. both those sergeants, one had served there and one is serving now. complete trust and confidence. dpa's job is not to investigate internal affairs. what i would ask at this point is we put this matter up for public comment and a vote as it stands. >> chief scott. >> i withdrawal my -- i think it's been covered, and commander walsh -- >> i don't know, commissioner elias, if you want me to answer. >> no. >> what you said. >> i think you did answer it. i want to be clear. i don't have any disdain or distrust for ia at all. i'm just saying that i still don't understand the logic if both agencies are doing their job and doing an investigation up until the conclusion, them receiving a report and conclusion from another agency is not going to deter them from doing their job.
7:14 pm
that's why i just don't understand why it's an issue. >> okay. thank you. >> we're going to call for public comment. i just want to respond by saying one thing. we want dpa to be completely independent in their conclusions, and after they've come to the conclusions, then they'll see what the department did. we want them to be an independent public enter at this time. public comment, please. >> hello, again. my name is zack dillon. i'm from the public defender's office, and in looking at the mou, two parts of it stuck out to me related to last week this commission considered a new policy for release of public records under sb-1421. that policy was a provision that anticipated notifying officers of a pending release of records and potentially some waiting period before those records can be released. the addition here in the final disposition notification section, section 4, a7, appears
7:15 pm
to render any kind of -- >> 4a7. >> yes. it appears to render any kind of notice to an officer that the commission was previously considering unnecessary. officers will be notified of a disposition when one is reached. notification aligns and can be added to whatever template or form is sent to the officer alerting if it falls under one the categories under 1421, the records will be released at one point. section five, classifications, roman numeral five, we have agreed to formulate consistent language to refer to categories of alleged misconduct. see sfpd dpa attached. i could not find the attachment online or here on the materials provided. i hope that it will be made public soon. any final list of agreed terms
7:16 pm
and categories be made public access to this list will allow defendants in criminal cases adequate means of seeking records through pitches of any records that may be relevant in their defense. potential plaintiffs in civil suits would also have access to these i'm sure so that they can get any evidence supporting their case they may be bringing. having standards of pies conduct is a great goal to have, but if only sfpd and dpa have access to those standards, public is no better off. thank you. >> thank you. i will say that on 4a7, that was language that the attorney general asked that we add to this document. >> i think it's a good suggestion to at the 1421 stuff. >> do we have the exemplar. >> what is that. >> i don't know. i don't have it here. >> next speaker.
7:17 pm
>> to me, the test answers is the incorrect analogy. the correct analogy would be an audit. you give your financial statements or if it's agreed upon procedures at the station engagement, you give them this piece of information or this set of assertions. you test it. if you're not together enough and you're going to be dissuaded by that, you shouldn't be in your job. they are competent, i would hope. is sfpd still going to be biased if they receive dpa's first? is it different, or are they -- it sounds to me as if sfpd is saying, dpa isn't competent enough, but they are the adults in the room. that's a real concern for me. words do matter. commissioner taylor mentioned previously that we all have
7:18 pm
bias. i know she is on the bias task force. i would like to hear about her biases and how she over comes them and how they have impact for her as a prosecutor in this body. >> chief, did you have -- did you want to say something? i thought i saw your name on here. >> it's been covered. >> okay. any other public comment? okay. public comment is closed. we're head ready for the vote. >> how can we vote without the attachment? >> we can. >> we have a position on the walling off dpa from the conclusions. this is a separate issue. i think we're still going to be -- i mean, i'm going to be no on that until that fixed because i do believe in the integrity of dpa. again, we can't vote on something without having the document. >> what attachment is it?
7:19 pm
where is it referenced? >> five in classifications, see the exemplar attached. >> i mean -- >> commander walsh, do you have something here. >> i don't have anything for you. this was originally we were doing the disciplinary matrix to agree on all the different categories and so the discipline matrix has been split off and that originally because the exemplar. there were lists from lapd and all that which we had 2.0 -- the disciplinary matrix and it got pulled for tweaks tweaks. that was the exemplar so we could work on that continuously. that got separated in that case. so what this is referring to is that discipline matrix that everybody has been working on. >> we can -- if we want to do the vote, we can strike that
7:20 pm
language if it's not necessary for the rest of the document. i don't know that it is. >> strike the exemplar. >> agreed. >> yeah. >> that's fine because we do have the disciplinary matrix coming up before the commission at a future meeting soon. it's completed now. >> and, again, the reason we want to come to the same language because originally we would use neglective duty and dpa would use something else. then our charging terms -- that's what that language is. >> we came up with single definitions for both sides and disciplinary matrix that applies to both sides. >> correct. >> okay. so let's -- >> i guess i'm going to make a motion to add the language of 1421 on a47. >> hang on. >> this is a motion to amend? this is a motion to amend? there is a motion right now that's been seconded to approve this. we've had public comment. you're making a motion to amend this. >> yes. >> all right. and the motion is what. >> to add the reference to 1421
7:21 pm
on a7 which indicates that the final disposition of investigation of a complaint the dpa shall show a letter to the complaint ant and remained officer that includes the allegation and the complaint and could be subject to disclosure pursuant to 1421. >> that's entirely separate. >> we still have a motion pending. >> is there a second to a motion to amend. >> second. >> any discussion on the motion to amend? that trumps the initial motion. any public comment? seeing none, i'll call for a vote on the motion to amend. >> we're going to call for a vote on the motion to amend including -- adding sb-142 1. >> we need to have the specific language in this motion to amend if we can. >> i would ask to add and could be subject to disclosure
7:22 pm
pursuant to sb-1421. commander walsh wants to be heard. >> 142 it 1 wa21 was the senatet went through. >> penal code section 832.7 instead of sb4121. >> any other public comment? it's closed. >> thank you. >> so do we have the motion now? is it clear will he written out? can we have it road. >> i believe the motion is to add language regarding the 832.7 that could be subject to disclosure pursuant to 832.7. >> okay. can you please call for a vote? >> all in favor. >> a. >> all opposed. >> no. >> can we go by name then? we're going to do roll call.
7:23 pm
>> hang on. >> what are we voting on. >> the motion to amend 1421 on the previously negotiated mou. >> 832.7, just to this section. >> we're going to do a roll call vote then, can i have your vote commissioner hirsch. >> no. >> commissioner taylor. >> i vote no. >> commissioner mazzucco. >> no. >> commissioner hamasaki. >> yes. >> commissioner elias. >> yes. >> commissioner brookter. >> no. >> the motion fails to pass. >> so the amendment doesn't pass. now we're back to the original
7:24 pm
mou and that motion. we've completed public comment. so we're ready for a vote on the mou. >> with the stricken language for -- >> yeah, striking classifications. >> striking that sentence, see the exemplar attached. >> right. are there any other amendments? are there any other amendments? we're striking five. >> striking the last -- >> the last sentence on three. it's just a few words. so there a motion to approve this with that language. >> so moved. >> second. >> public comment on that? no public comment. it's closed. please call for the vote. >> we're going to do a -- can i have all in favor on this motion? >> aye. >> any opposed?
7:25 pm
>> nay. >> we'll do a roll call. commissioner hirsch. >> aye. >> commissioner taylor. >> aye. >> commissioner mazzucco. >> aye. >> hamasaki. >> no. >> elias. >> no. >> brook center. >> aye. the motion passes 4-2. i was handed a slip of paper which indicates there are some language -- well, we approved 2.04. it refers to the department chief of the police academ cad. academy. that position has been eliminated since this has been finalized. the department chief of administration is the title as well as the deputy chief of policing professional standards. that's now the deputy chief, the field operations -- of the field operations bureau. is that correct? with he need a technical
7:26 pm
amendment to the 2.04 vote changing those two references because the title of the position has changed. can i have a motion for that? >> so moved. >> second. >> okay. public comment? no public comment. any discussion? deputy chief of police academy is now deputy chief of administration. that's the new title. department of principal policing is now the deputy chief of the field operations bureau. those are the two changes. >> we have a motion to modify the language on page 8, lines 2 and 3 where we -- the deputy chief of the academy in is now the deputy chief of administration and the deputy chief of principal policing and professional standards bureau is under fob. >> correct. right. >> we have a second or motion and a second.
7:27 pm
>> right. >> let's to a roll call vote on that one, too. commissioner hirsch. >> aye. >> commissioner taylor. >> aye. >> commissioner mazzucco. >> aye. >> commissioner hamasaki. >> aye. >> commissioner h elias. >> aye. >> commissioner brookter. >> aye. >> it passes unanimously. >> next item, please. >> line five, general public comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on the 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 dpa personnel. under police commission rules of order, during public comment neither police or dpa personal no, sir commissioners are required to respond to questions presented by the public but may
7:28 pm
provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and dpa personnel should remain, however, from entering into debates or discussion with speakers during public comment. >> general public comment. >> hello, commissioners, chief, and deputy director. my name is zack dillon. i work thank you public defender's office. i've been -- >> can you move the microphone down? thanks. >> better? i've been courting efforts and i have received zero records. on january 2nd of this year, my office submitted a request for those records newly made public for all active sfpd officers. we received replies that a smaller request to be easier and have made more than 30 records of request of 100 different officers. for some of those requests, i've received as many as nine letters
7:29 pm
notifying me of the need for more time. sfpd and dpa have received approximately 75 requests for these records, many from my office, however, i believe these are from multiple cop he's other of the same records. when a record is ready, it should be ready for everyone who has requested it. in a march 1st, 2019 court filing, the city and county of san francisco stated it intends to produce daunts responsive to sb-142 1 beginning that day. the release of those records was then prohibited by court order until the poa withdrew their case on march 29th. in the 7 weeks since that order was lifted, my office has received zero records from sfpd or dpa. chief scott el told the board of supervisors it would take 294,000 hours to go through the everyone personnel reports. that averages 2 hours per record. 10 people are on it full-time. by his figures, they could have
7:30 pm
release 15 records a week. that's 10 5 records since it ended.
7:31 pm
>> our office is still certainly filing motions. the information you get from that, as many of you know is a name and address. under sb-1421, you get everything. you get transcripts of interviews, you get recordings of interviews. you get any and all information
7:32 pm
related to that request. and again, this is violence, use of force against a member of the public, this is firing a weapon at a member of the public, and this is sustained allegations of dishonesty against a person who's a member of the public. so those four categories are a subset of what d.p.a. and the police department have, but it is a large amount of information, i understand that. the 30 requests we have made of officers are of active cases. >> that's important that you get that. i agree. >> president hirsch: okay. captain? >> under the a.d.a., we would be under obligation to provide
7:33 pm
that. if there's sustained allegations that go to dishonesty, you certainly get those records. and then, with such a large issue on 1421, we talked about it last time we were here -- we talked about it last week, as a matter of fact, and we're setting it on the agenda in june so the d.p.a. can respond and search its records and sfpd. >> president hirsch: this is public comment. it's not supposed to be back and forth. i don't want to set that precedent because we won't survive it. commissioner elias. >> i am concerned as to why only two reports have been released and those have been with respect to retired officers, and i am going to ask that the police department show
7:34 pm
what -- how it is prioritizing these requests as they come in since we are asking d.p.a. to provide that information, i think it's also fair that the police department provide us that information, as well. >> commissioners, i think the discussion here has gone way beyond. we need an agenda item in order to continue the commission. >> president hirsch: all right. commissioner hamasaki? >> commissioner hamasaki: all right. i would follow up. i didn't know that only providing the retired officers, so i'd ask both the chief and the d.p.a. address that. i can't imagine that -- that just doesn't sound right, and if that's going on, it'll be addressed. >> president hirsch: okay. public comment? yes. >> my name's leo thistle, and i'm a student at hastings. i know this commission has considered and will consider a new policy for how to handle record requests under sb-1421.
7:35 pm
all it did was to expand the definition of what records are public. a new policy of when and how to release those records is unnecessary because there's already a general order covering public records requests. the notification of officers provided for in this procedure is completely unnecessary and uncalled for in t and called for in the statute. presumably, the p.o.a. has already informed them as it has brought an end to the civil action on the officers' behalf. in chicago the past five years, all allegations made against officers, whether sustained or not, has made that information public. it's a citizens police data
7:36 pm
project, the sfpd feels that there is inflammatory information in these records underscores the legislation that the public has a right to know and keep police accountable for how they investigate and how they account for their officers' misbehavior. to not only allow but say that an independent oversight agency shall share its records with the very people and organizations it's charged with overseeing is an abdication of responsibility. if d.p.a. releases 100 pages on an officer and sfpd releases five, that should give the
7:37 pm
public pause. we cannot take a law and hold police accountable for reviewing which documents the public has a right to receive. it's not d.p.a.s job to investigate i.a., and it's not i.a.s job to rubber stamp what d.p.a. released to the public. the public is better served with two public results. >> president hirsch: thank you. any other public comment? >> good evening, everyone. i just wanted to comment on the mother's day event. yes, we did go to the mother's day event, and yes, mother's day is actually really hard for me. our children's case is unsolved. the mother's day event was good, but i only went because i wanted to see the other
7:38 pm
mothers. the event, i didn't care about. i have a relationship with those other mothers who have lost children to homicide. i do appreciate the roses, the flowers, and things, but we've been doing that for years down at city hall, standing in front of city hall by ourselves in the rain, and this is a thing that happens every year, but it brings the mothers together, and that's a good thing. i appreciated all that, but it's not solving our cases. it's not doing anything for us 'cause when we go to these events, we're talking about our children, when are they going to solve our cases? when are they going to do this? when are they going to do that? i would like to use the overhead. i come here all the time to talk about my son aubrey. his birthday was april 6. he would be 30 years old.
7:39 pm
you go from 17 years old to 30 years old, that's a long time, and still, his case isn't solved. you guys have all the names of the perpetrators that shot my baby. these names are down, they're on his case on the fifth floor in homicide. these names i didn't get out of a hat. these are on his file of all the persons that did this to my child. so i asked why isn't this case solved? it's not so much as no one wanted to point the finger, nobody wants to tell they're not giving evidence. they put all these people in jail to let them out again. what do we do to change the laws so that some of our cases can get solved? i bring these pictures because these are all unsolved homicides. i stand with some of these
7:40 pm
mothers and fathers. and you talking with -- about mother's day? father's day is coming up, and they will be hurting just as much, as well. my son had a father, and he talks to me often. he asks me about the case. i'm not saying he doesn't have the heart to do it, but i'm the one that took the therapy to go out there and cure myself of the trauma that i've gone through, and his father hasn't, so he's counting on me. so the pain and the trauma is still there. and all i have is to put these pictures up on a pole. we need a venue. thank you. >> president hirsch: thank you. vice president taylor? >> vice president taylor: thank you, miss brown. i enoujust want to say that -- sure commissioner mazzucco can speak to this, too. as you know, i used to prosecute homicide cases, a lot
7:41 pm
of homicide cases, and it's impossible to do without witnesses coming forward. and there are people walking around this city who know who killed your son. and it is so frustrating when you have community members who know what happened, were there when it happened, but when it comes to what happened, i didn't see anything, i didn't hear anything, i don't know anything. and i just want to entreat anybody who's listening, when it happens to you, then, it becomes really important that you have people who come forward. and i want people to understand that when you lose a loved one, when you're a mom who's lost their child, there is nothing worse, and there is nothing that the police with do, any law enforcement can do if the people who saw that happen don't actually kind of pony up and say this was wrong and i'm going to do something about it, and i'm going to testify and be a part of this. and i would just urge anyone in the community who knows
7:42 pm
anything -- because i'm tired of seeing you here. >> i'm tired of being here. >> vice president taylor: i want you to enjoy your life, and that can't happen unless people speak up. >> president hirsch: the anonymous tip line is 415-575-4444. thank you. >> thank you. >> president hirsch: any other public comment? all right. public comment is closed. next item. >> clerk: line item six, public comment on all items pertaining to item eight, including closed session. vote whether to hold item eight in closed session? >> president hirsch: is there a vote to hold item eight in closed session? >> clerk: there's public comment before we vote on whether to hold item eight in closed session. >> president hirsch: do we have a motion?
7:43 pm
>> so moved. >> second. >> president hirsch: okay. public comment on whether we go in closed session? >> clerk: all in favor? >> president hirsch: public comment's closed. >> clerk: motion passes unanimously without commissioner hamasaki.
7:44 pm
7:45 pm
7:46 pm
7:47 pm
7:48 pm
7:49 pm
7:50 pm
>> clerk: okay. commissioner, i'd like to read line nine. vote to reveal any or all discussion held in closed session, action. >> president hirsch: motion? >> move for nondisclosure. >> president hirsch: all in favor? any opposed? >> clerk: the motion passes unanimously. >> president hirsch: is there a motion to adjourn? >> yes. >> second. >> president hirsch: all in favor? opposed? >> clerk: the motion passes unanimously. thank you. >> president hirsch: thank you.
7:51 pm
7:52 pm
7:53 pm
>> my name is sofy constantineo and a documentary film maker and cinema togfer, producer and director. it is inevable you want your movie to get out and realize yoi need to be a commune tee organizer to get people together to see the story you will tell [inaudible] pretty rich and interesting. in what we do as film makers is try to tell the best story possible so i think that is where i [inaudible] learn everything. lighting and cinematography. i got jobs of stage manger at some place and projectionist. i kind of mixed and matched as i went and kept refining i feel like it isn't just about making things that are beautiful and appealing and rich and [inaudible] the way that
7:54 pm
the films [inaudible] it has to tell a story. >> my name is sumell [inaudible] free lance multimedia produce. my project is [inaudible] mostly oof street photographry with a few portraits. i'm going arounds san francisco and capturing the [inaudible] as we started to do this project i was reading about the decline of african american population in san francisco and i wondered where the remaining population was and what they were doing and how life was for them. >> i wasn't very inspired by school, i wasn't very inspired by continuing to read and write and go to class. i watched a lot of movies and saw a lot of [inaudible] i said that is what i want to do. i had this very
7:55 pm
feminist [inaudible] and i felt like there was not enough of a womans vision on the stuff that we see, the movies that we make and the beginning of the [inaudible] the way we look at women and the roles women take in the stories being tolds. they felt [inaudible] they did want feel complex. i was like, i have a different frame i like to see the world shaped by. >> my grandsmother was a teacher and taught special education for 40 years in los angeles and when i was growing up she inspired me to record everything. we recorded our conversations, we recorded the [inaudible] we recorded everything to cassette players. learning
7:56 pm
multimedia skills, from the other crossover employment opportunities for young people. someone who grew up in la rks san francisco feels like a small town. i lived in western addition and i was looking for someone to cut my hair, i found [inaudible] he seemed like a very interesting guy and grew up in the neighborhood and had a lot to say about something that was foreign to me. that local perspective and so important to me because i think as someone who isn't from here, knowing that history allows me to be more engaging in the community i live in and want the same for others. i want people to move into a new neighborhood to know who was there before and businesses and what cultural and [inaudible] shape what we see today. >> my guiding principles have been, if you stick to something long
7:57 pm
enough and know what it is and go for it you will get there. [inaudible] where i want to go, what i want to do and it is totally possible so, the impossible is you know, is not something to listen to adjourned. >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shop & dine in the 49 with within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique
7:58 pm
successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 my name is jim woods i'm the founder of woods beer company and the proprietor of woods copy k open 2 henry adams what makes us unique is that we're reintegrated brooeg the beer and serving that cross the table people are sitting next to the xurpz drinking alongside we're having a lot of ingredient that get there's a lot to do the district of retail shop having that really close connection with the consumer allows us to do exciting things we decided to come to treasure island because we saw it as an amazing opportunity can't be beat the views and real estate that great county starting to develop on treasure island like minded business owners with last week products and want to get on
7:59 pm
the ground floor a no-brainer for us when you you, you buying local goods made locally our supporting small business those are not created an, an sprinkle scale with all the machines and one person procreating them people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and can't get that of minor or anywhere else and san francisco a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant we'll make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of san francisco and a vibrant community
8:00 pm
>> please stand by for closed captioning. >> good morning, the meeting will come to order. this is may 15th, 2019, the regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am sandy fewer, the clerk is the lovely linda wong. i would love to thank sfgov tv for broadcasting this meeting. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> yes, please silent cell phones and electronic devices. any