tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 16, 2019 8:00am-9:01am PDT
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. 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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. >> 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 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? 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 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 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 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. >> 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 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? >> 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 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. >> 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 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 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