And was with commissioner dejesus and i. We met many times with the various members of the of the working group that i mentioned, and there were there were clarifications that needed to be made to the language. We had to make sure, also, that the dgo was consistent with the administrative law, and code that has changed in the last couple of years, and we wanted to make sure there was consistency with other language in the in other dgos that exist. So the chief actually has highlighted several important parts of the dgo, but i do want to mention a couple of other things that you can see in the strikeout language or the parts that are underlined in the 282018 draft. For example on page two, near the bottom, theres a reference to the fact that members shall not enforce administrative immigration detainers, thats thats something thats received a lot of publicity over the last couple of years. More than the last couple of years. Theres litigation over that issue, and we wanted to make is clear what the various types of detainer forms that can be used by ice, that the that there not be any confusion. I would drop a footnote here to point out that in fact the the San FranciscoPolice Department generally is not the entity that would that a detainer would be issued to or delivered to. It generally would be the sheriffs department, but in the rare occasion when that might happen, lets make it clear, that the that when it comes to detainers, were consistent with the earlier part of the dgo. Also, there was a lot of confusion on page three, under part 3a, over ice requests for Emergency Assistance or response by the sfpd. And it was very clear from the discussion and the department was very good in helping us clarify that language that yeah, when theres an emergency and theres a threat to life and danger, even possibly of an ice agent, well, the police will respond to that, just as they would respond to anyone whos in need. And so but in no event, as it points out in the next paragraph, part b, is will the members assist in federal Immigration Enforcement as part of that. And going onto the bottom of page three, and carrying onto the top of page four, it there are times when there may be calls for cooperation between federal, state, and local Law Enforcement. Again, its made very clear here and in conversations with the department at the working Group Meetings that theres theres definite oversight that the department is not entering into an agreement to enforce immigration laws. There may be agreements to enforce other laws, but there should never be even part of that agreement that deals with enforcing immigration laws. And if it turns out that a member is called to assist in what presumably is not an Immigration Enforcement effort, but it turns out that there is an Immigration Enforcement effort that was unbeknownst to that member, that there immediatneeds to be an Immediate Response to us that thats what happened. Thats in the middle of page four. And finally, in the theres a call on page five to some additional oversight that every year and theres actually a typo graphical error at the top of page five that we should adjust, by no later than january of each year. Do you see that . Yeah. And i think commissioner dejesus found another typo. Yeah. On page three, 3b, on the second line, the little thing thats crossed out, it needs to stay in. [ inaudible ] Emergency Response to ice or cbp shall immediately notify their supervisor. The strikeout went a little too far. To, and middle of page three, next sentence. Okay. I think they did hear me. Can you hear me . Based on that, i would make a motion that the commission adopt the revisions to dgo 5. 15. With the corrections made. With the corrections. I second that. And before we i seek Public Comment, i want to say, and this is very legally sound document. Its very fair. Its extremely fair, and it points out that, you know, we would respond if somebody wants to criticize this document, alls i ask is that they read it and read the entire document, and also read San Francisco sanctuary city policy and ask yourself what it is. You ask ten different people whats San Francisco sanctuary city policy, you get ten different answers. They want to just take a position. Read this. Read this very sound document that basically lays out what our officers should and cannot do, and i just want to thank you. You did a great job, both of you. If i can just Say Something before we vote. The department was very helpful, the peg groups had helpful, but the communitys so informed and pointed us in the right direction and really assisted us with great language and the forms and gave us examples and helped us understand the nuances in the language, so i just want to kmampg the Community Members. Any Public Comment regarding department general order 5. 15 . Good evening. Good evening. My name is maria esparza. Im the coordinator for the San FranciscoRapid Response network, which is a 24 hour hotline to provide assistance to anyone being targeted by ice enforcement in the city of San Francisco. I want to thank the commissioners, the working group, as well as the Police Department in the most recent months, weve had an ongoing collaboration with the Police Department regarding verifying information when the community misconstrues Police Activity for ice activity, and the Police Department has been very instrumental in helping to verify that information . And with regards to the dgo, there are two specific points that i want to raise up regarding further editing to the dgo . Under. 3b, where it says except as required by federal and state law, that last clause, i think, first of all, i dont think its consistent with other points regarding it to me, it feels like a loophole. There is no federal or state law that requires for local Law Enforcement to enforce or to collaborate with regard to enforcement to federal immigration laws . And i think that this point really undermines a lot of the trusts that were trying to build with collaboration of the Police Department of having that clause that except for into these circumstances, because there is no except for. That should be made for, that there is never an opportunity or a chance or an instance of scenario where that collaboration would happen. Thank you very much. And im out of time. Before we go to another can i ask a question, id like to ask the two commissioners who work odd this if you could respond to that last point. Yeah. That language is actually taken from the city administrative code, and that language actually also exists in the immigrati immigration and nationality act thats being litigated right now. The issue of under the federal immigration and nationality act, local jurisdictions cannot prevent voluntarily cooperation with federal ice, and and therefore we i actually think its wiser to keep this in here to make sure its consistent with the litigation position that the city and county is taking in its litigation against the trump administration. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. I my name is saira, and im an attorney on the working group, and i want to thank commissioners dejesus and hing on bringing this policy along. Like my colleague mentioned, the acceptance of federal and state law within 3b, Section Three talks about providing Emergency Response to ice or cbp, and emergency members appears twice under this code, and it doesnt really make sense to put it under part of this code . The context is a little bit different, so to put it under this particular piece when were talking about ice and cbp, aurlocal Law Enforcement not working with ice and cbp, it does seem out of place here, quite frankly . So i dont think it should be in here. The second part that i want to talk about is we did address during the working group is joint drill operations, and i understand that sfpds position is they have to work with ice. What really concerns us is that members of the communities, oftentimes these operations turn into not just criminal operations but joint criminal immigration operations . So i would urge the commission to rethink these situations, and for sfpd to also rethink their involvement in these. We saw in oakland that there was somebody who was who was supposedly picked up on a criminal operation . Originally ice said it was trafficking, but that individual was never charged with trafficking and in fact was just charged with immigration violations, and opd as a result did face some heat on that, and the city council decided to pass a resolution saying that their officers should not be working with ice on criminal operations, either, so we urge you all to rethink that, and once again want to thank the leadership of commissioners hing and dejesus. Thank you. Next speaker. Welcome. Can i ask, are you is your position that youre totally opposed to this language anywhere in the ordinance . The language of as required by federal or state law or are you suggesting that we move it someplace . While youre looking at that, i just want to express a concern that if we do change this language i know this has been complete vetted, we probably will not be able to vote on it tonight because wed have to run it by our City Attorney. Just what were approving tonight is to be sent to the p. O. A. For further negotiations, so this is not final, so thank you for your suggestions, but if we do follow and i defer to whats already been done by professor hing and commissioner dejesus, but you have to understand we have to be consistent with what the litigation thats pending now, and i dont want us to be the ones that are going to do something inconsistent with what the City Attorney doing in the other litigation. Sometimes were worth smithid here, so i want you to rethink your request. I know youre lawyers, but i want you to reconsider. The last thing you want is anything to be in opposite to the pending litigation now that the City Attorneys office has so i think you need to respect that, and ill turn it over to commissioner hing. My preference is to go forward, and we can consider other recommendations at a future date. Thats my recommendation. I do also have a response to the second part of your comment. My recollection in the working group was that although hypothetically there could be joint operations with the San Francisco p. D. And ill let the chief respond to this and ice on solely criminal matters or dhs on solely criminal matters, that entering into these agreements is not automatic; that theres quite a lot of deliberation that goes on, and that i dont let me put words in your mouth, chief, but the department would lean against those kinds of agreements. Im asking you, right. Those that process is vetted up to the deputy chief level and criminal operations bureau, so those operations have to be approved by a deputy chief, and they are vetted, and we do look for collateral issues. Were very cognizant of that. There are operations that we have not participated in because of that, so it is a very thorough process, and it goes up to a very high level for approval on any such operations. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner hing, you had a question about the language, about except for state or federal law. So i just want to point out that under 2 d 1, under there it talks about not releasing certain pieces of information . And there it has except as required by federal or state law, and that would cover federal 1872, its already included within here . Its included again here when it comes to collaboration between local Law Enforcement and ice. Its not only redecide dundant, but that refers to specific types of collaboration . I understand that. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, chief scott and commissioners. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak today. I was also part of the working group. My name is jay han leaner. I appreciate you taking the time to update this. I just want to echo the same things that saira and maricela was saying. I know theres a lot of checks that you do before entering into a joint Task Force Operation with dhs or any ice agency on what they call a criminal arrest, but in ices only press release as recent as the l. A. Arrest that happened this week when almost 200 were arrested, they call hrm and ice. Maricela has responded to ihsi. Theyre basically the same organization here in San Francisco, where three people were collaterally arrested. They werent the target of a criminal investigation, they were just arrested on immigration violations. Theyve had their own press releases saying that theyre using hsi as that arm. And also to underscore what saira said, i appreciate that you want to keep this language in with the litigation. I think thats a broader goal that we all have the same, but yeah, the same language is already in the section b as sara said, and it only applies to not sharing immigration status . It doesnt apply to these enforcement operations, so i would also take it out of the Emergency Operation part. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any further Public Comment on this issue . Hearing none, Public Comment is now closed. Id like to thank the junk lawyers and Community Participants for working on this. Its good to see lawyers actually doing something for the benefit of their community and not for money, so thank you. Its greatly appreciated. Director henderson, you had a comment that you were going to share . I was just going to point out what we were talking about, in that section, section 3, section b, those comments that you were commenting on have been included in this general order under section 2, section c, where we talk specifically about any investigation, attention or arrest procedures where any such instance, either express or implied, if the purpose it for enforcement of federal immigration laws, is restricted. So i just wanted to make sure that we talked about that inclusion, and to thank john eldon from my office who worked on this. So now, we have before us, we have a motion and we have a second with reference to the two small word changes. I think at this point, we need to take a vote. On the motion to accept department general order 5. 15 with the two corrections as stated by commissioner hing, for the purposes of engaging in the meet and confer process with the Police Officers association [ roll call. ] the motion passes, 60. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Great job. Please call the next line item. Item 6, general Public Comment. The public is now welcome to address the Commission Regarding items that do not appear on tonights agenda, but that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. Speaker shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department or dpa personnel. Under Police Commission rules of order during Public Comment, Neither Police or dpa personnel nor 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 refrain however from entering into any debates or discussion with speakers during Public Comment. Please limit your comments to two minutes. Any further Public Comment . Ace is not here, so hearing none, Public Comment is now closed. Im back again. Id like to use the overhead. Im just bringing up about my son again. When i was asking about a venue for our children, this is the kind of venue im asking for the Police Association put these on the bus a while back ago so we can have some recognition about or children and whos out there murdering our children, the perpetrators can see thipgs like this and signs on the buses, maybe theyll think again, and maybe some of our childrens cases will be solved. Ive been asking for that for some years now, and we put all of the signs in the windows when other people are being unsafely victimized and they can run into restaurants and run in and go get help, but our children have nowhere to run. We dont have signs for our children to go run that are being shot by bullets, by a community violence. They have nowhere to run. They have no place to run into, and if they do, theyre going to get put out and killed. So thats why im asking for signs like this. You know, if we dont have nowhere to run to, maybe signs like this will detour the perpetrators that are killing our children out there. I keep these names, and we brought this up earlier thomas hannibal, andrew vadue, jason that ma thomas, acme hunter, and marcus carter. These are all the perpetrators that murdered my son. Thomas hannibal and paris motter are the main suspects in my sons case. Im not making this up. This can be looked up. Thank you, miss brown. Any further Public Comment . Hearing none, Public Comment is now closed. Please call the next line item. Item seven, adjournment, action item. Do i have a motion . So moved. Second. All in favor . Thank you, everybody, have a good evening. Wor