We would quickly be in the very same position we are in. I get why superficially that is an appealing way to go, but the volume of cases, we represent over 20,000 people a year. So we would very quickly be in the same position, i think. What i think my suggestion would be that there be some soulsearching in each department be reallocateing staf until they get until and unless they get new staff. So these are we have an 11 million budget plus, and i cant remember how many hundreds of millions for the Police Department, and a lot of staff. So the question is what should be prioritized . And the public has a right to these records. And so what priority does that public right have . In my view, in 2020, year two after this law came into effect, we should have a plan for fulfilling the mandate. And i dont hear any solid plan. I dont hear goals, internal goals, that are set. I hear a lot of, you know, theres nothing we can do. And i dont accept that in my own work when i push up against a wall, i try looking for other avenues to try. And so to me, and we come to the commission, because we understand that accountability is here, right . And so the questions i would have is what can be reallocated over the next year so that we are not having this conversation year after year after year, but that in 2020, the public can have the records they have a right to. The allocation, i appreciate your thoughts on this, but reallocation is a dangerous proposition. You are talking about not only your request for 2300 officers but the examiners request for every officer ever since the beginning of time. And the business of d. P. A. Is bringing complaints before us so that we can appropriately admonish, discipline, terminate officers who shouldnt be on the streets. If you are saying that should be delayed and we should have officers on the streets who shouldnt be so that d. P. A. Can respond to 1421 requests full time, thats a dangerous proposition too. So i completely understand your frustration, but its not simple. And the more we unpack this, the less simple it seems to me, because choices have to be made when youre talking about four attorneys, right . So at d. P. A. So the more i hear about this, the more frustrated i become, because it seems impossible, because yes, there is a mandate, but there is a mandate from the examiner, from you, from p. O. A. , and they all have to be responded to, and we have a business of the commission of making sure that the officers, the sworn members who are on the streets to protect you should be there. Right but thats a little unfair for d. P. A. , because d. P. A. Has records the only records they have are based on when someone complains. Right . So theyre presumably the San FranciscoPolice Department would have even more records, right . Because the sfpd has records that include people who have complained and people who have not complained. So i feel like the target has been d. P. A. And why they arent producing records but there needs to be accountability on the sfpds side as to why they arent producing records. I am speaking to both agencies. I dont mean to be focusing on d. P. A. Here tonight. I mean, what i said is that the five percent is even a more dismal figure. And while there is an issue with dishonesty based on the legal advice d. P. A. Is getting, that issue doesnt apply to sfpd and we still have not one single dishonesty finding, which seems unconceiveable to me. I had a question for sfpd. I realize you were called up here, but you are still waiting in the wings. I think my fellow colleagues, just to kind of wrap up, i do actually, i enjoy the proposition, because it was one that youve given. So i do appreciate that. However, also what im kind of hearing too is do you feel that the Public Defenders Office should get priority over these other requests that are coming in to both sides . We do feel when our clients are incarcerated, that gives them should give them a certain level of priority over folks who are at liberty to move around. So in that instance, yes, we do. We do. And i just want to say, im not saying this is easy. Im not coming in here saying, why is this a problem . Why are we talking about this . Im saying if we dont if we only say theres nothing we can do, instead of asking what can we do today to make this better im hearing you. Saying theres nothing they can do, thats not what ive heard. Ive heard about process challenges, work being done. Its not the speed thats ideal but thats not what ive heard today and thats not what i heard on this issue. I was responding, i thought you said it seems impossible. Yes. Thats what i was responding to. I see more from d. P. A. About what they are doing. Im more confused about what sfpd is doing and how theres only been 32 records disclosed in almost a year and why theres no thought to increasing staffing in this area. We already but i havent heard it. Lets go back to the department you are answering my question to the department. Commissioner taylor. Thank you. I have a couple of questions for you. The first is, can you talk about why there are only two people workingthon and talk about the things you are doing in terms of resources . And much less what d. P. A. Is, give us some clarity on that. And i have a question about the numbers. You said there were 113 requests, about 32 percent of the requests you received, youve gone through. I think the numbers from the p. D. s office was like five percent so im trying to figure out where the disconnect is here in what they are saying they have gotten which is five percent and the number youve presented which is much higher. I dont know what records we are responding to nonjust the Public Defenders Office with our productions. So got it. But weve released over 30 records and d. P. A. Said theyve released 14. And they say there are 1414 percent and we are at 15 percent so i dont know where they got their math from or if its because we are releasing more than just them. But the closure rate and the volume of what each request encompasses. Thats the thing is one request from the Public Defenders Office is basically 9,000 requests, because its different records that are stored in different places that have to be evaluated differently. So it seems, the one request could be closed out because it was one person or the attorney said could you look and see if i say im not able to provide the use of force determination as quickly, because i have to go through all these records, but i may be able to look and see they have no complaint history and provide a record of the termination regarding the Sexual Misconduct or dishonesty, because i have no record of any complaint. I cant do that. Talk about two people working on this. D. P. A. Said they only have four attorneys. Tell me about your resources. Why there are only two people working on these requests. Chief, you want to direct that . I can take that. Theres more demand than we have people. We have civilians, and this budget process, we are hiring 25 more civilians in addition to the eight for the actually its more than eight, its 11 in all. Theres eight in the process right now with the backgrounds being completed. Theres one attorney plus two additional civilians. So thats adding 11 people. We also have body camera unit that has been civilianized with civilians. We have records unit. We have property division. Theres been a call to civilianize positions and put the sworn officers where they belong in the field, and thats perfectly appropriate. But the reality is we have more to do than we have people to do the work. And we have to prioritize and try to divvy up the work as best we can. We are behind in the bodyworn cameras. Before this commission, the issue with the 6228 issue, and that was a personnel issue as well. So its coming. We are hiring new people. We got the budget for it. We didnt get what we asked for, but we got help, so youll see some improvement, i think drastic improvement when we get these level people online, which eight of them are in the pipeline, we just have to complete the background. Okay. Commissioner elias. In your presentation you said you look at the use of force when those requests come in. Do you look at the use of force logs and tag them and go get the Police Reports and review them them and then din close those records . Im trying to understand the criteria or how you determine which of your records is responsive to this . Because i assume, like for example dishonesty, if you have a police report, you dont know whether the officer was dishonest until someone investigates it, right . Because they are just the dishonesty is a sustained finding so there would have to be a complaint associated with it. So use of force, that doesnt have to be a complaint associated with it. And we may not have the complaint or a record of the complaint if it went to d. P. A. So for use of force, we have to get the physical police report, whenever it is stored, if its laser, our crime Data Warehouse system, access photographs or other records and we can access those records and the person may go to d. P. A. Later and present medical records they did have a broken bone, but i will not have any record that that occurred in my file. So it is hard to make the determination. But if we have if we try to determine look at the use of force log, look at the police report, look at the photographs or other evidence so we can try to determine the levelofinjury that resulted from the use of force. Commissioner mazzucco. Quick question for maybe the chief. How intensive this is, we live by silicon valley. We have sales force in our backyard. Is there any way we can take everything the d. P. A. , Police Commission and Police Department has, have the service go out and put that into the cloud and have it searchable so that when the request comes in, its a matter of going in and using key phrases like we do as attorneys, with major cases, with huge document productions and millions of documents, using relativity and other databases, is there any way we could do that . Maybe its very simplistic of me to say that but i do that with the cases i have in our office, and commissioner elias does it and commissioner hamasaki and commissioner dejesus. Is there a way we could do that . Is that a concept thats reasonable . Yes. I have a meeting set up tomorrow and next week with vendors regarding this issue of the Case Management systems. Something we are exploring in our budget cycle. We do have some issues with having outside people come in to see our records. A lot of our records contain criminal history records that people dont have clearance. But once the records have been redacted to a certain level, they can go into that. And we are hopeful these Case Management systems could help us with the way the requests come in. Because we cant control how people make requests. Its how the public request law works. They can make it any way they want. But for us to sort those and prioritize those and have them make sense, we need to be able to put them in a database that does what we need. Our Current System does not immediate mete that need. But we are looking at ways to do that. I will also just say so if i can go ahead. To answer your question, that is the vision. Weve also talked to other departments that are doing maybe not to the degree that youve suggested, but doing some of that. And so we are reaching out to the other departments in southern california, some of the larger departments, and also we can come up with a system. Weve been talking to vendors to see what they can do in terms of whats out there to do that. I mean, this is new for everybody. Theres one in particular that is reportedly saying they think they can come up with a system to help us. I have a call scheduled with them tomorrow. Okay. Is that going to be something thats tied into what we are working on with d. P. A. About putting everything online . Is it going to be the same system . I dont want to have to that is. D. P. A. Has the finding. But we are working together as much as we can have a database, a system we can all benefit from. Obviously part of the contemplation of that issue, i dont want to forget, its not just the system itself which is forwardthinking and great for whats coming up in the future, but its also the data migration of getting that information into that system in a format that has to be digitized first. So with records that go back to 1982, all the records from back then were and are maintained on cassette tapes which have to be listened to, transcribed, redacted, part of this process on sometimes handwritten documents as well. I dont want to forget that is a big part of even if we had a perfect system that would be able to digitalize that information and make those short sets in the moment, a big part of that is transitioning a lot of the records, which already exist or currently exist today into a format that can proliferate throughout that system and figure out how to use it collectively and individually amongst the agencies. I was going to state for the record, those of us in the nonprofit sector, customer management system. We do a lot of data sharing as well too. Did you have Something Else you wanted to add . All right. Thank you all. Thanks. So i wanted to make a few comments to add context to just kind of the magnitude of this and d. P. A. Had a slide they included. They looked at basically 15,000 pieces of paper. And for us, its that exponentially. And as was mentioned, for d. P. A. , they have quite the challenge like we do. We are looking at the case files that are brought to their attention. We have that, and we have a whole lot of other documents. And the question i think commissioner hamasaki had asked, how far back we go. And we are going to go back as far as the records exist. And i can use myself as an example. Lieutenant spoke with use of force. So in 2006 we began to capture use of force data in whats called the aim system. So thats readily accessible in a Record Management system, but for anybody still with the department, and there are many of us, we have to do a hand check. And the starting point for that is to look at use of force logs and go through those logs, those actual pieces of paper to see, using myself as an example, did sullivan use force in 1995, 1998 . There are going to be case numbers associated with that. That entails that the staff actually look at those reports, they have to find the reports and then have to read through the reports to make it come to a determination of whether or not the force that was used falls within the category that we are talking about Great Bodily Injury. So there can be associated photographs with that. Sometimes making a g. B. I. Determination isnt as readily apparent as one might think. To come to that decision, there are other pieces of evidence, if you will, that need to be looked at. Any one case, ill use officerinvolved shootings as an example. Those case files can contain, i know many of you know this, but those case files can contain thousands of pieces of paper. So to be responsive to just one officerinvolved shooting, that requires a staff member or Staff Members to read through those thousands of pieces of paper and make the appropriate redactions. And lastly, when we issue a request, the entirety of the department, and to use round numbers, 2300 sworn members across four categories, which are included in this particular section, this penal code section, thats roughly 9,000 searches we need to do. Any time that same request is made six months later, and i think the comment was made commissioner hamasaki in terms of the work that you do, you need the most current information, correct . We have to be responsive to not only that first request that covers a defined parameter of time, but now we need to go back and look at those same 2300 officers in that second time frame. Theres a lot of different components to this. Its not been for a lack of effort. Its not impossible. We recognize its not impossible. Its a matter of, in my opinion, its a matter of getting the right systems and having the requisite staff to address the issue. And in a more perfect world, this would have been come gone into effect in january of 2019 and there would have been plenty of lead time to afford the representative agencies here today to put those systems and those people in place. But thats it dont tell the reality that we have. And theres complaining about that. But we are reacting in a very proactive and aggressive way to address these issues. And i think that just kind of in closing, i think the conversation the dialogue that has been mentioned, the ask of the respective agencies, i do feel will go a long way, because certainly the Police Department, and i think i can speak for d. P. A. , we dont want to chase your tail around this issue. We want to get out the information and respond in the most expeditious way but also be able to prioritize those particular requests and be responsive to it. Thank you. Thank you, commander. Thank you, lieutenant. We are ready for the commission presentation. You have 12 minutes, but dont feel the need to take all 12. Exactly. Thats why i have no powerpoint. I am so sorry, commissioner elias. Dont worry commissioner, chief scott, director henderson, members of the public, im rachael here to present on behalf of the Commission Office regarding the questions you all had about the production of public records related to penal code section 832. 7 also known as s. B. 1421. Tonight both the department and d. P. A. Have discussed and described their processes and challenges for the intake and production of s. B. 1421 records. The Commission Office has many of the same processes and challenges. And while i may be repeating myself, i feel its important to underscore the fact that compiling these records is complex and lengthy, although i will keep it short, commissioners. The Commission Office receives 1421 records in the same manner as explained by the sfpd and d. P. A. , through gov qa, email phone or fax. The request is entered into the Case Management section of gov qa where its given a unique tracking number. Its also entered into the commissions internal tracking system that you mentioned, commissioner elias. But i do have to say that that spreadsheet that you commended, we stole from the sfpd. So they do have that. And its as robust as ours. As the requests are fulfilled, both gov qa and the database are updated. Then a confirmation the request has been received