Its a sunshine ordinance and the Public Record act and government code complaint and they should file complaints or they can bring lawsuits if theyre not getting their records. Thats the remedy. Im president taylor. Im good. Does anybody else want to say anything . If you do, put your name up there. All right. Nobody does. All right, so can we have a motion to approve the protocol with the amendment made by commissioner alias adding the word or after section 1a. Adding two words. The word o and the word which after b2. And the correction that is made. Is there a motion. So moved. A second. Second. Weve had public comment. All in favor. Aye. Opposed. It passes unanimously. So the next step will be to get this over to the City Attorney and to get this over to Human Resources and well get them back and be able to discuss with us what we have to do and meet and confer if anything. Next item clerk line item 4. Presentations regarding reless of sb1421 documents. Limits will apply. Discussion. Public defenders office, department of Police Accountability, San FranciscoPolice Department and the Police Commission office. This was put on the agenda at my request because i wanted the three agencies, the department, the Police Department, the department of Police Accountability and the Commission Office to report on their work regarding 1421. Where they are and what theyve done and what problems they have what they anticipate going forward. The Public Defenders Office contacted me and asked if they can also have time to present. I said yes. So i have scheduled them to make the first presentation. Fiveminute presentation. Thank you. Weve seen that. Thats it . He doesnt have a work quota like you do. You have seen your way out of this. You only have a minute left. Im kidding. So we did ask, thank you for the opportunity. We did ask to be heard as we are a requester of these Public Records and we wanted our requester to be part of this picture tonight. Starting on january 2nd of this year we requested 1421 information on all of the sfpd officers. Starting with the response from d. P. A. , we have we have response on 14 of active officers at this 11 plus month mark. Breaking that down, the gray area represents 86 of officers that we dont know one way or another from d. P. A. Whether they have responsive records. Only we have two percent of officers where we have partial disclosures, i say partial because the response doesnt tell us whether its complete or not. So we do know whether theres Something Else out there and then 12 of officers who dont have any records. Going to the pie chart on the right, that just tells us what the 2 i disclosure are so a little under twothirds are shootings and a third are g. B. I. We have zero dis honesty and zero Sexual Assault from d. P. A. In part because of the way the sustained finding language is being read although, we believe if they make the same findings independently, that because then theres an opportunity foray peel and then that d. P. A. Sustains findings should be disclose able. We will have 100 of officers disclosed whether its disclosure or no disclosure at the end of 2025. So seven years it will take from d. P. A. At the rate were going. The picture of disclosures from sfpd is even bleaker. We had only 5 of officers that we have received any information on one way or the other. And that means 95, we dont know. So 3 we have partial, disclosure and then 2 we know they have no responsive records. Of that, there was a media report in whole or the whole issue, i cant really say. In april, the media reported that the agencies harry potter said that they were each dedicating 10 Staff Members to 1421 but at the d. P. A. Symposium, d. P. A. Reported 115 hours per week being spent on 1421 and 748. So thats little less than three full time on both issues. At the same time, sfpd said they have two staff dedicated to 1421. We talked about this so i will skip past. The reda redactions are far beyd what is required. They are both redacting civilian Contact Information in every single report. And that is not authorized by the statute, its not authorized by the draft protocol. The g. B. I. Definition i would ask that you look at this in the protocol because it needs to be tweaked slightly to be fully accurate with the law and specifically where theres a group of officers who use force on an individual, and that individual surfs g. B. I. S but we dont know because we cant know who specifically inflicted the g. B. I. , in the larger context, you can each person can be liable for the g. B. I. Because if you contribute to force, that cause g. B. I. , and you cant tell that doesnt mean you dont have any response ability for it if you cant tell who specifically caused it. But the way sfpd is interpreting it is theyre not disclosing anything. Thank you. Your time suppose. We have this report though. Thank you. I have a question. We have questions. I had a few questions going through this report. If you dont mind. One of the g. B. I. Issue, i looked at all of the jury instructions that jogged my memory when back in the day when i knew them. First of all, both instructions have the same definition for g. B. I. And then, i think the more appropriate instruction is the one that actually governs which is assault with force likely to cause, right, which is the 875. You didnt mention that either. But all three have the same exact definition of g. B. I. Im not sure the problem. Its a smaller point for certain but theres a stand alone instruction its 3160 with only defines g. B. I. The one in the protocol is a torture instruction which could be a little bit confusing to someone who is looking to that document about what this torture business all about. And so, our suggestion was simply to use the instruction that only defines g. B. I. Doesnt include other issues and that same instruction defines g. B. I. In the Group Context. Its the same definition in all three. The Group Context, to my i dont know the Group Context instruction is in the torture instruction which is what is listed. 810 is what is listed in section 1c4a. 875 seems the most appropriate to me because it is assault causing g. B. I. Thats what the whole thing is. The whole kit and ka budeel. It almost doesnt matter because ill look again. They all were the eye general cal instruction for what g. B. I. Is. The concern that we have is that someone would be confused by what the inclusion of the torture instruction or language is. And the group beating context which is the language that the cases use i dont believe is in the instruction that is cited here but it is in 3160 which i should clarify defines the stand alone Great Bodily Injury allegation. It is the same, more than minor or moderate injury. Its the same basic definition but it adds the Group Context, which weve already encountered issues with. How did we wait, wait, wait. Hang on. Are you finished . No, im not done with my first question. I also wanted to know, so these percentages, like the 14 , the 5 , how are you coming up with those numbers . Does that include when there are no responsive records . Yes. And 14 is all youve gotten, include what is there are no records, everything . And 5 for sfpd. Right. I had a question about the resource issue. I know at a meeting with the criminal task force with someone from your office with d. P. A. And there was a whole presentation from d. P. A. About the resource issue, which seems to be to be a legitimate issue. The 14day delay and not meeting that deadline seems serious. When you look at the staff they have and the time it takes to really comb through those records, which you have to comb through every single record individually and make a factual determination. It was a pretty sympathetic presentation to sit and listen to. Right, if you dont have the resources you cant do the job. I heard that as a criminal Justice Task Force and someone from your office was there. Are you trying to resolve this and work this out because it seems like a mandate that they cant possibly meet on the deadline that you needed and a lot of the problems would seem to be solved if you were talking to each other . Im not sure. If there was something i could do to help with this issue, short of we can dedicate some of our staff to come and look through their files. I mean, its an allocation issue. You are in regular contact and working through these issues . We are in regular contact with d. P. A. In a variety of context. In terms of whether or not theyre dedicating enough resources and including the additional funding that they got for Additional Resources to response to 1421 request, im not sure how i can do that. Im open to suggestions. I know you guys come to these meetings all the time and your complaints seem reasonable. Hearing that presentation from d. P. A. Was like, thats pretty rough. They really dont seem to have the resources to meet the demands as quickly as they would like to. And so it didnt seem to me to be a question of the will is there but theyre only so many bodies. Im just wondering if theres a way that im really just brainstorming here, that greater communication could facilitate these requests and you are not the only ones making these requests. Determining priority, talking more, is there a way there could be greater communication that could get you close tore what you want . So i will absolutely say, when we have made specific requests and asks they prioritize those officers. They have done that. The reason we asked for every Police Officer is because of the volume we handle. If we made specific requests on every case we had, we would be in this same position. They cant prioritize every request. One of the things i saw was that there was about a Million Dollars in additional staffing for 1421 and 748 for two attorney and two legal assistance. But in the si symposium informan that was presented in the written materials we got, they said theyre only spending 115 hours a week on it which would be less than three fulltime employees. If my math is right. So, the Little Information that we have access to doesnt seem like theyre devoting all the resources that they were allocated to the issue and i dont know how we can affect improvements there. I want to move on to some other commissions. If theres brainstorming to be done, this is not the best forum for it. It can be done elsewhere aside. It can be helpful. We have a d. P. A. Presentation coming up in a few minutes so that may be helpful too. I think thats the point of having a discussion. To get ideas out that people havent been communicating to each other. You started to touch on this during the last question. As a commissioner, my view would be the greatest concern would be for active cases where you need to have the information on an individual officer similar to a motion and whatever you never get from those. Are you doing them with each case where you will need them, specific requests or you just relying on this blanket one . Were not relying on the blanket one. So if you send in a specific letter with, you know, a case number and saying and i dont know if you need to do that. Is that i would assume that should be given priority over general requests. I know that across yeah. So, im sorry. Im asking what is your office doing for ones where theres an expedited need for them. We get in, on average, 20 plus cases a day. 20 new cases, thats probably a low. Felony unit . That could be in the felony unit alone. Im giving a low average. Its higher. San francisco is such a quiet place these days. Everyday. So if we sent over, if its a buy bust and you have 15 officers on each buy bust, if were doing that every day on each case independently, individually, its not going to change. Theyre in longer going to be able to prioritize, right. So theres things that are being done on your end and theres the responses from the different agencies and i was going to followup with questions for them about that as well. So, i do think that the case specific, i mean, obviously all these records should be available but the way that the law was passed, and the departments and d. P. A. And so fourth were given no resources until recently, to manage requests for over 2,000 active officers and thousands more that are not active, it just seems to me there has to be a way to make sure that you are getting the ones that you need as soon as possible. I dont think the way for us to make an individual request on every case. So you are or you are not . Not on every case as it comes in, no. On the more serious cases if the cases get to the trial stage, its happening at that point. I dont think it would be fruitful for us to do it earlier in the process as the cases come in. I think it is i think it has to be looked at as an allocation of resource. This is a legal lehamn dated duty of d. P. A. Mediation, as i talked about before, while lot able, is not a mandatory d. P. A. Duty. There has to be some openness to allocating the resources that we have to the mandatory functions before the discretionary ones. Has your office taken a writ yet . Have we taken a writ on the failure to comply . No, not yet. Aclu ive been dealing with this in Southern California and dealing with aclu down there and i mean, eventually, you need to take a writ. Thats not so, i think what well do im encouraging you. A civil suit is probably more likely. A criminal writ its not a criminal writ. Its a writ from the Public Records request. You can find the aclu does them, yeah. Yeah. Ok. Ok, thank you. I just want to know that we just passed a protocol that on page 8 has a priority of release. And weve actually outlined six priorities. Were trying deal with that. Were following that i believe, currently even before this was. Commission elias. Two things, one, i think i said it before but i want to say it again. That we are currently working on obtaining the ability to have Online Access for 1421. Weve started having meetings with d. P. A. Who has been budgeted money to get this done. Weve been working with the Police Department so we can have one Central Place where records can be released. I think that a lot of the hold up is with the bodyworn cameras and especially for the Commission Office, a lot of the hearings are on taped casettes s so they have to listen and get them transcribed and its taking a long time. The way that we tried to remedy that situation was to tell the department, the commission and d. P. A. To roll out what you can in terms of documents and with respect to the electronics stuff, you just have to take a minute and deal with it when you can. So i think that all three agencies have been complying with that request. With respect to the redaction, this is another issue that came up with the working group. The news media had approached us and said that the San FranciscoPolice Department was redacting pronounce when they were releasing the documents to the news media and to anyone else who was requesting the 1421. Again, we spoke with buck and the City Attorney and their advice was they should not be redacting pronounc pronouns becy should discontinue. Its my understanding they have. Chief, i dont know if i think theyre on board with that as well. I think when we present lieutenant waylen can speak to that. For clarity for the public and as the commissioner said, this commission has made it a priority that there be disclosure to the Public Defenders Office and any and all information regarding a pending case where someone is in custody with pending charges so that gets a First Priority when you make your request. And we made that we put that in our protocol and procedure. Its important for the public to know that this is new. We are hiring people going through backgrounds in the Police Department and the d. P. A. To review this and its va loom inus and they requested each and every San FranciscoPolice Officer, thats 2300 officers. Now we said if you have a case where its pending, then we would expedite that request. Its important for the public to know, and ive heard people go back and fourth on this, in the criminaljustice system, for those of us have that been there, these requests are made before the court where the case is pending and its made pursuant to either a pitch us motion, i hear you dont get everything you need and for the general public, its for a request for the Police Officers personnel file. There has to be a showing of relevance whether its dishonesty or use of force. The court does an incamera review and if something is in that officers file, the same file that would be turned over in 1421 the court makes that determination. Thats not accurate. Thats not close to accurate. I dont know what changed. Secondly, the prosecution has a brady obligation. If theres anything in the Police Officer personnel files that affect affects their abilio tell the truth they have to disclose it. Theres another method for getting this disclosed and the 1421. I want to make it clear, again for clarity, that if you have a case pending, and you make a 1421 request, you will get the First Priority and we made that clear. First and foremost, thank you for your due diligence. You guys have been coming toe meetings. Weve been having this conversation and i look forward to the robust conversation. I want today ask my colleagues and its fair to the public if we see the rest of the presentations as well too. I think some thing