Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20240713

Any Public Comments . Next week is our last meeting for the year and we wont convene until the second wednesday in january. Any Public Comment . Okay. Public comment is closed. Line item 3, discussion and possible action to approve protocols for release of sb 1421 documents for purpose of engaging in the meet and confer process with the Police Officers association, discussion and possible action. A working group spent quite a bit of time preparing this set of protocols. And commissioner mazzucco and elias took the lead on behalf of the commission. So i will turn this over to them. Thank you, commissioner hirsch. We received, first we want to again thank the individuals who participated in the working group. It was very informative and it was good to see everyone in the room at the table and having open and fluid conversation with each other. We received a lot of requests and recommendations with respect to the language for the 1421. Commissioner mazzucco and is intention in terms of preparing this document was to have this document be sort of emulate the statute and the wording specifically in the statute, because we want to get this passed as quickly as possible as we know this is going to go to meet and confer. So the law is the law, and thats what has to be followed. We understand that it is a work in progress, and there are several nuances that are going to be developing as this process takes place. And we believe that ultimately, the court will be getting involved in sort of interpreting a lot of the questions that were raised by the various individuals that appeared at the working group. So we took that all into consideration and tried to create a protocol that would address as best we could, all the different sort of recommendations and suggestions, including the City Attorneys recommendations. And thats what we have before the commission today. I want to thank commissioner elias. This was a collaborative effort. We had the Public Defenders Office, the San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco Police Commission office, we had many members of the Police Officers employee groups, various groups participated. The City Attorneys Office provided us excellent advice throughout and was present. And again, both commissioner elias and i were very consistent in that we follow the statute. If theres issues with 1421 as commissioner elias said, that will be litigated in court. And we wanted to stick to the plain meaning of the statute. Theres some things that are ambiguous but there are professionals involved. Well get this to the meet and confer requirement. There will probably be litigation. At that point the courts are make the determination. This do you mean came together quickly with the help of others this document came together with the help of others and theres nothing contentious about it at this point. I have a question for you. I think its work talking about in public a little bit. And that is, its on the third page, c1 page three. There is a paragraph that reads, there is no sustained if the officer resigns or retires any time before the chief or commission makes a final determination. If the commission continues its investigation despite an officers retirement, the charges will be sustained. If the commission has made a final determination sustaining a finding and the officer has been afforded the opportunity to appeal. And the question i had is whether we would ever have the ability to continue an investigation after an officer retires or resigns . I thought we had lost jurisdiction at that point. This issue did come up at the working group. And buck was present, and he actually answered the question that you just brought up. And his answer was that if the two categories that require sustained findings, the commissions had the power to order either the charging agency, so the San Francisco Police Department or d. P. A. To continue its investigation up until the sustained finding. Because thats when it could be wouldbe final and then subject to the 1421 disclosure. And that was an example that came up, because we oftentimes see a lot of the times the commission where charges are brought up against an officer, and the officer resigns prior to the final adjudication, and we see that a lot. So that question came up, and he answered that, and that was his answer. Thats correct. Much to my surprise, one of our again, it was an Attorney Client concerns, but one of the most esteemed City Attorneys, buck, told us that. Its the first time ive heard that in my years in the commission. And theres some practical insures with us Going Forward and doing this. When these officers do resign, they are walking away from this. But how much further do we need to go, is the question this commission has to address. We can go forward, and we can, and it would be i dont think it would appear once theyve resigned. So those are the logistical issues weve thought about afterwards. But its an issue. The first time we learned of that issue. I think commissioner elias and i were surprised when we received that legal advice. So its an issue we have to deal with. And many of these cases where the officer resigns because theyve had criminal charges sustained against them, so to speak, or theyve been found guilty or pled guilty, and thats something that would be disclosed. But its a decision this commission has to make down the road about whether or not we ask the d. P. A. , the Police Department to continue their investigations and to come forward with the hearing. Most likely the officer will not be present, and there would be a finding by the commission. So again, its something we need to discuss in the future. And he said it isnt about dispolice, us continuing to go forward wasnt about discipline but taking the case to final adjudication so it would comply with the 1421 requirement. Exactly. There has to be an opportunity for the officer to at least defend him or herself. They absolutely can. They can participate. They can just choose not to. All right. Is there Legal Authority to this . Or is this just an opinion buck gave at the time and we dont know if theres authority . At the time he did answer the question, and he did say he looked at the charter. Because when he was giving us this advice, we were in the working group and he collected all the submissions by all the various agencies. Because i think one of the agencies raised this issue or came up during the working group, i think he went back and may have spoken to the City Attorney working group that they have on the 1421. That im not sure of. But then when he came back and told us again, it was at the Second Working Group we had, because the First Working Group we had was the one you were present at and he was sitting next to me and said it. And the second time was when commissioner mazzucco and i set at city hall with the very select sort of agencies and the City Attorney. And he again reiterated that. This is actually our third meeting at city hall with our attorney. And it was the agencies that are represented by the City Attorneys Office were present. And thats when he gave us that opinion. All right. I want to stay on this issue. So do either commissioners taylor or hamasaki have a comment on this point . I do. I think miss taylor that was one of my questions. I mean, i think we are all surprised by it. Its an interesting vote [off mic] yes. We are all pretty surprised by this. Its an interesting road to pursue, right . If we pursue an officer who is resigned, i want to make sure we are on firm ground if theres litigation over that. It would be nice to have more than buck, who is obviously wonderful, and i respect him, but more than that for our ability to move forward. So i dont know. Im not sure what the question is, but that is the opinion of the City Attorneys Office, its not just buck and this is based on legal analysis of case law . Right. So the commission has subpoena power. The commission could issue a subpoena. We would have to go to court to enforce it. But all those are questions that would be anticipated heavily litigated down the road. And well cross that bridge when we get there. Commissioner hamasaki . Yeah. So this is something thats come up for me since i think early in my term on the commission. Its always seemed troubling that by resigning, an individual deprives us of our ability to investigate disciplinary or criminal conduct thats being thats occurred, either under the cover of law or another capacity, because they resign, and then the city, were not doing our job by conducting and overseeing the investigation and releasing findings and Holding Individuals Accountable and being transparent to our city about the problems that may have existed. So ive always been in favor of this. Im glad to know that we have the Legal Authority on this, because the idea that we are going to sweep things or that we have forever swept things under the rug, not intentionally, because i think there wasnt the knowledge that we could do this, i welcome this news. And i look forward to us instituting this process. And i also think its good for the members who want to clear their name, instead of resigning and quitting, going somewhere else, they have the opportunity to have the full rights and due process that is afforded to any member of the departments through the investigative and disciplinary hearing process. So overall, i think this is an excellent addition. Commissioner dejesus. So i got two questions. Why havent we done this before . Because this is incredibly frustrating. And weve been told we have no jurisdiction, and now we are told we have jurisdiction. So i dont know how that switch flipped. But let me finish the second question. I am concerned about due process. I mean, if somebody leaves the country, our subpoena doesnt work. If we cant give anybody notice, and we are having a hearing without notice, theres a due process and potential litigation and potential privacy issues. So im baffled by this process. If i can address two issues. One, i think its very important to remember that this be, this only play mris to sustained findings. Only applies to sustained findings in co2002 categories, Sexual Assault and dishonesty. We owe it to the public to continue the investigation on those two categories. Because the public has the right to know whether theres someone accused of sexual misconduct, they have a right to know about that or dishonesty. The other thing i want to [off mic] okay. One at a time. Go ahead. Only because this came up at the working group too. So with respect to the charges portion, that was another issue that was raised at the working group. And the sort of consensus was the officer would know about the charges, i mean, presumably, he would have the charging document, and then he resigns. So he or she would be fully aware of the charges. And given the opportunity to either litigate the allegations, up until the final adjudication or not, but at that point he would have notice these charges are happening, because usually the way we do cases, they resign right after the charges are filed or okay. Vice president taylor. The City Attorney weve had cases before, as we know, from before the commission, where we all felt frustrateed because obviously nt in every case, but there are cases where weve all felt like we really my understanding was that we couldnt keep going. So i understand the frustration, and thats part of the question i was asking. I want to make sure we are on firm ground if we are Going Forward, if we have a legal basis for this. What changed . What changed . We could maybe get a memorandum. Whats your question . The question was is what changed so that now we can continue up to sustain charges with or without the officers presence, when before weve been told we have no jurisdiction . I guess thats just a big question mark in my mind. To my knowledge, the questions that have been asked of the City Attorneys Office has not been specifically about can the commission continue once an officer has resigned and the charges have been withdrawn. You werent here. You werent present, but it was to a different deputy City Attorney. And again, to those specific situations that you have, i ask that you direct those questions specifically to the department that was here in closed session, i imagine. But to my knowledge, there are walls for a specific reason. So im not involved in that. Moving forward, this is the advice from the City Attorneys Office, that once a week u. K. Proceed. I think actually every that you can proceed. I think actually every, i cant speak to those facts as to why you couldnt move forward. Is there a consensus, we would like to get a written statement from the City Attorney advising us as to the law . That would be helpful. I think i understand the opinion but it is different than we receive aid year ago i had a second followup. Just so we can make a request. If you dont mind, can you put it in writing so i can pass it along within the office . Put the question in writing . The exact question. Okay. Can you draft the request. Like a onesentence request. Ill send it to you. Thats why we were shocked and kept asking buck, are you sure. We asked him several times. And it was the answer that was repeated. And hes wellrespected, so we didnt, you know, after the third or fourth time, we sort o great. You had another question. My second question. That was my first question. My second question was about Sexual Assault, but child Sexual Assault victims, there are privacy concerns and issues there, and thats not laid out specifically in this document, but im sure thats part of what you consider. So if you can just talk about that and being able to redactorr protect in regards to Sexual Assault. There are redactions. Theres another area like privacy protections that are normally in existence which that would be, then it would be protected or redacted. So this was just for 1421 issues. So we have to focus it on 1421. It mentions federal and state law. It doesnt lay that out, so i wanted to make sure that was clear on the record that nothing changes with respect to the privacy of children and victims of Sexual Assault. And just for the record, the people that are being hired to do this work, to review those files, i know on behalf of the Police Department, for example, the people that we have in the Commission Office are experienced, have an understanding of the law, and their judgment will be they are familiar with what needs to be redacted, whats privileged and whats not. Nothing is going to be perfect, but we have people that understand what is privileged. They have experience as paralegals, whereas attorneys or investigators. Thats going to fall within their discretion. If it doesnt work, well hear about it. Commissioner hamasaki. Yeah. Just a procedural what do we in the interim, what happens . We are going to vote on this tonight, right now. Right. Public comment i meant so are they using this for guidance . Are they releasing records now although its not going to be an official document . Because it has to go through meet and confer for some reason . Weve been using something close to this but not exactly this, only because the statute is there, and these agencies have to get their information out. But once we do pass a written protocol, well have to go back and make sure we were in compliance retroactively. And Going Forward we will, but in the meantime we go to meet and confer. And that will take whats the meet and confer basis busy for basis for thi . I dont know to what sent but thats what the department of Human Resources will advise us as to what issues we are obligated to meet and confer over okay. Are they going to be here in closed session next meeting or something . If we are sending this to meet and confer, why are we and on what basis . We need to meet with before they go to meet and confer, they get back to us, usually in writing, and tell us what it is we have to meet and confer over. Just so this isnt one of our multiyearlong engagements thats why we treed to keep it very it seems very unoffensive. To anybody even tribe to be there was trying to be. There was a request as to how each Department Releases records. We tried to do that but we realized the system in which they find records and release records is a completely different than what d. P. A. Uses and what the commission uses. So it was not practical for us to create one unified document where it would require San Francisco Police Department the commission and d. P. A. To follow one set of logistical procedures in terms of how these documents are released. We tried very hard, but it wasnt feasible. They have different systems, different protocols. And so thats why we only we have this. And i would like to add, the statute is in effect. And whats happening now with reference to disclosures is they are following the statute. So again, we are just dressing up the statute a little bit with more explanation. Theres going to be challenges and issues. Then the case law will develop thereafter. You look at the statute, next time we look at it, there will be more guidance. But we are starting. And what weve asked everybody to do is follow the law and turn over the documents as required. And i think the public needs to know if there is an issue, if theres a conc