May or may not need to be revisited. One of those policies that came out during this discussion that i do believe needs to be revisited and i do believe needs to be rescinded. Fs sheriffs gag order that made him the last authority whether his department would communicate at all with federal immigration authorities. So on no. 2 there is a resolution that does three things. One, it confirmation this boards support for our existing sanctuary city law which has been a pilar of our Law Enforcement policy and Public Safety policy in San Francisco for decades. It also confirmation our support for the due process legislation that supervisor avalos sponsored in 2013. And third, calls on the sheriff because he asked for direction to rescind the memo that he issued this march 13, 2015, which amounted to the gag order on his department. One of the important pilars of our sanctuary city policy and its codified in federal law is referencing personnel Law Enforcement to give information to these entities. Prescribe to limitation in certain circumstances but it is simply impossible to pro actively legislate every personnel leader nr San Francisco. In particular there is no way that we as the board of supervisors, the mayor, or anyone could have anticipated the circumstances surrounding the presence in San Francisco of the person who is ultimately responsible for what happened at pier 14. Its one with six felony convictions with multiple deportations and held in San Francisco on a 21yearold marijuana charge that every Law Enforcement in San Francisco would have been able to foresee, would have never been prosecuted by our current District Attorney either on the outstanding warrant let alone would anyone have ever brought that charge today. Although this individual was then held for 2 weeks in county jail in violation of civil rights which i do find ironic no one has an interest in talking about. There is no way we would have ever been able to break the circumstances of this individuals presence in our set the city and there is no way we would be able to pro actively legislate every situation in San Francisco. Its impossible. Therefore i believe that discretion is necessary and this granting of discretion is necessary to our officers, necessary for the safety of our residents and our Public Officials. If the discretionary is handled well, it should be recognized as such. If they handle it poorly, they should be taken to account for that as well. However the Sheriffs Department wide memo issued this march took our sanctuary city policy and due process policy a step further and essentially amounted to this gag order for our Sheriffs Department unless the sheriff approved otherwise. Its not only a violation of my opinion of federal law but our existing policies that we pass at the board of supervisors and simply do not prescribe what he demanded of his department this year. This resolution simply calls for its rescission. Now, i have taken the time, as has my staff and i want to thank my staff for working on this issue. To meet with a number of immigrants rights folks and organizations to understand their perspective. I understand many of them are not in favor of this resolution. I also understand that they were integral in drafting this resolution with the Sheriffs Department. And i respect their opinions, but i believe this Department Wide gag order flies in the face of the best interest of Public Safety for all of San Francisco. A few things, they have also argued and gone to some of my colleagues to say this resolution calls for proactive notification from the federal Department Immigration authorities. It is simply not true. No where in the resolution does it call for proactive notification. Nor am i publically nor have i ever called for proactive notification. It calls for a gag order to be restricted because its what our Law Enforcement is paid to do and what we should demand of them. There has also been an argument thats gone around saying that if you support the resolution of supervisor campos, you cannot support the resolution rescinding sheriff mercurys gag order because its not true. You can oppose this and oppose the gag order placed on the Sheriffs Department. When i spoke with the City Attorneys office, they agreed with this and if you need to, we can hear from mr. Gibner during this discussion. Our sanctuary policies and all policies are set the base and parameters for when and if Law Enforcement communities can communicate and notify federal immigration authorities. Pep operates on top of these both local policies. But the sheriffs gag order flies in the face of these two policies. They operate on two distinct lanes and the gag order goes beyond our local policies and flies in the face of federal law. What i do firmly believe is we should never be afraid to visit policies and examine policies that should have been before the board of supervisors to begin with. We didnt issue policies in 2013. It wasnt a priority then and if so, we should have had that debate at the board of supervisors. But to allow a Department Head to issue a gag order like this, then in my opinion flies in the face of Public Safety. Without having that discussion with the board of supervisors, i think runs against protocol and therefore when the sheriff ask for direction from this board of supervisors, from the Sheriffs Department that his gag order should be rescinded. I dont think there is no way we are responsible for everything that happens in our city. There is no way to prevent what happened on pier 14 or the individuals in custody in San Francisco and there will absolutely be similar unforeseen circumstances in the future of our city. Fundamentally i believe the discretion we are to give to the Public Safety officers is important. Its for the safety of our residents and the public job of our safety officials. Again, if handled well, great. If handled inappropriately, we should take people to task. But those facts dont mean that we shouldnt take a hard look at these existing policies and have the right outcomes if it needs to be changed. What has come up to the top after revisiting our policies and depth that the sheriff needs to have a gag order, goes well above the plain letter of our laws that we have passed and debated over time as well as federal law. Communication at some levels has always been a corner stone with building and trust in the community. These circumstances where this board of supervisors does not believe its appropriate but we have never placed a gag order on the department. This gag order that sheriff issues affects all communities with immigration authorities is not in the best interest of Public Safety of our residents here . In San Francisco. I look forward to the discussion, colleagues, and hope to have everyones support. Avalos afls Supervisor John Avalos avalos thank you, i would like to thank supervisor campos for coming forward with his resolution. I thought it was best we dont come up with any resolution at all because we are dealing with protecting policies that have long been in place against politics. I felt it really important that we come forward and weigh in. I want to thank you for bringing this first resolution forward, item no. 1, supervisor campos. At the heart of todays discussion are two ordinances passed in San Francisco. The sanctuary ordinance passed in 1989 and all ordinances. Both at different times with different circumstances. The City Ordinance came about after a year after those came from war torn countries in Central America and may i say these wars were an abetted and sometimes caused by the United States of america. We had many refugees coming from Central America and seeking sanctuary and seeking refuge. We had a lot of movement not just in San Francisco but across the country that ensure that there were places that people could seek sanctuary and a lot of churches were involved in that effort across the country. But it wasnt enough. We saw that in order for people to look at our local laws for how we can ease the fear that people lived with and also to ensure that we were creating our city Law Enforcement that understood where people were coming from and also recognize the contributions that people even as undocumented immigrants were create ing in our local economy and city as a whole. This sanctuary ordinance came in 1989 based upon these experiences that we had and other experiences. The due process which was passed in 2013 came about under different circumstances. Those different circumstances where our federal Government Community program which falsely named because it doesnt secure our communities. Because the exuberance of the federal government to support was playing havoc in our communities with similar ordinances around the country were able to establish greater sense of trust with Law Enforcement to become more involved in civic like and around the country but within communities that was being eroded when we were attempt to attempt ing to separate local Law Enforcement and it wasnt going far enough and we had to amend the law here and other places around the country so we can actually create greater separation. So we wouldnt see anyone coming forward as a witness or even as a victim getting caught in our immigration system because we were abiding by the federal governments rule to hold people beyond their time. Thats where due process had come from. The intent of it was really to keep that separation real, to strengthen that separation that we try to do the sanctuary City Ordinance as well as to build trust in confidence between our communities and Law Enforcement. We wrote these legislations to withstand the changing sands, the changing winds of politics. I believe we didnt do a good enough job of that. Not because we didnt fit the laws to the current needs but the changes in the federal government getting around to the changes and protections at the local level and thats where this comes in. With the program, now the due process is about not detaining anyone beyond their release day to be turned over for ice. Now the pep program is says, we dont want you to turn anyone over, we just want you to notify us when someone is going to be released so we can pick them up at the release time. Well, that whole effort of contacting ice to notify them when someone is going to be released, undermines the complete goal of trying to create that separation from local Law Enforcement and immigration. Now, if people know and people think that you know, ice is going to call our sheriffs or Sheriffs Department is going to call ice to let them know that i can be released if i come forward as a witness and get caught up in the jail system that i get deported i dont want to talk to Law Enforcement. So we are seeing by the pep program changes, we are actually, federal government has another way to undermine our local protections. So we are in a situation right now where our sanctuary City Ordinance wasnt responding to pep as our order does impasse Security Community but now we have the pep program but the due process is silent on this notification and in that we have this tragic event that happens. And rather looking at how we can make our laws secure and meet the need that we had originally attempted and successfully attempted under secured communities to create those protections we are now talking about eroding our laws, our very laws themselves. Creating a separation, taking way the separation we sought to create. I dont believe the word gag is a neutral word. The word gag is a very political word. Im not sure how many times i heard the word gag right now. I heard it a number of times, but the actual policy in place relates to contact and communication and well probably hear from the Sheriffs Department, it doesnt create an absolute firewall between that and the Sheriffs Department. The word gag is completely politicized. We are in a very political moment right now. We have people running for president in the United States who are using immigrants as escape goats to be able to advance a hate agenda to get them elected. They are getting a lot of traction with a minority that is changing Public Opinion. I looked around at the public election and at that time dukeakis was running against washington, the liberal and dukeakis was trying to create people humanly in the prison system and there is an incident that happened like katesteinly and it called the wille horton add showed people going through the revolving door in prisons where people of color, white people, but when one prisoner coming out the door looks up at the camera and that is glaring stare it at that period into all, this whole countrys concern about race and fear about race and black people. That commercial had a huge contribution to dukeakis soft on crime and that believed or seemed was something that carried out for 15 years in the country because we were, people were considered soft on crime, they lost elections. If you were not hard on crime and tough on crime, you couldnt get elected. If you werent going to pass laws that were tough on crime, you couldnt get elected, you couldnt stay in office. We had a whole series of laws that came about that actually resulted in a lot of people of color, african american, latinos getting locked up and we saw a prison system getting locked up and we had people across the country with 12,000,000 worth of court fees. We are in this right now. We are establishing a law in San Francisco to protect people in the communities and having the laws withstand the Shifting Sands of politics and hard pressed to be able to do thatch. We are seeing at the federal level this whole thing about Immigration Reform, one that is opening up the possibilities the path ways for citizenship and People Living and working and contributing in our midst to live without fear and now we are going back to the way this is politicized that we are shifting the possibility of Immigration Reform all across our country and San Francisco. I wish we did not have this debate before us. We wish we were talking about how we can update our ordinances to make sure that we can actually meet the changing federal programs that are trying to circumvent our local laws and protections we create. Here we are today. I will just go into a little bit more about how these laws have been politicized. On july 6th, the mayor puts out a state about due process for all. This is monday july 6th, the week after the tragic incident at pier 14. He says he would veto the sheriffs that does not give discretion over violent felonies and the next day his staff found a language in the sanctuary City Ordinance that says Law Enforcement does have process for this and to hold different circumstances to say no, the sheriffs has discretion to talk to ice. Thats just simply not true if we look at what were the circumstances why we created City Ordinances and the circumstances for creating due process for all. We created due process for all to not give that discretion. To give that discretion for narrow circumstances. And even as requested Lopez Sanchez i believe his name is, had, did not set the discretionary for sanctuary in place. But with this legislation and what happened had been politicized. The way you read about it in the San Francisco chronicle was that this person has violent felonies. Violent felonies, gag order, there is politics going on here. But lets focus on what we can do to actually make our policies right and not let the politics get in the way. Supervisor norman yee any other comments. Supervisor campos . Supervisor david campos thank you, i actually maybe i will wait for supervisor farrell to come back to hear my comments. I want him to hear what i have to say. Supervisor norman yee i see that sheriff is here. Would you like to come to the podium. Good morning, board of supervisors, chair yee, we would also like to address supervisor farrell for his return and we have prepared comments and would like to address those comments. If you would like to proceed, please do and well stand by. Thank you. Supervisor david campos thank you. I wanted to make sure supervisor farrell is here and sheriff mirkarimi is here. I have a lot of respect for folks who are here and identify a lot i have a lot of respect for supervisor farrell