October 1, 2015, snul city , city of San Francisco government audit and Oversight Committee please stand by. Good morning. The meeting will come to order. This is a special meeting of the government audit and Oversight Committee for october 1, 2015, im supervisor yee, chair of this committee, joined by supervisor london breed and Supervisor John Avalos the committee would like to acknowledge the staff of sf govtv and bill dylan who record each of our meetings and make the transcript available online. Before i continue may i get a motion to excuse supervisor christensen . No objections. Motion passes. Madam clerk, any announces. City clerk please turn off all cell phones and any electronic devices. Items for the file should be submitted. Items will appear on the agenda unless otherwise stated. Supervisor norman yee madam clerk please call items 1 and 2 together. City clerk [resolution urging the rejection of Priority Enforcement Program] sponsors campos; avalos and mar resolution opposing the scapegoating of immigrants and urging the rejection of the deportationfocused Priority Enforcement Program. City clerk sf 11234 [confirming support for the sanctuary city and due process for all ordinance and urging the sheriff to immediately rescind his departmentwide gag order] sponsor farrell resolution confirming the board of supervisors support for the sanctuary city and due process for all ordinance; and urging the sheriff to immediately rescind his departmentwide gag ordercity clerk sf 11234 sf 21234 supervisor norman yee before i allow campos and ferrell discuss these two items. Its a very important discussion we are going to have. Its a discussion led by our city, not by people that dont seem to understand with a the values of our city would be to protect our immigrants. At this point i would like to turn it over to, before i do that, i would like to announce that the overflow room for people standing around, we have another room open at the chambers at the overflow room. If you dont have a seat, you should go there. Supervisor campos . Supervisor david campos thank you, i want to thank you, mr. Chairman and your staff for putting this item on the agenda and i want to thank my colleagues in the committee for hearing this item. I know supervisor avalos had two 2 two 2 days in a row traveling over the to and from dc. So im grateful that hes here today. Let me begin by saying something that needs to be said which is that i think that we are very unique in San Francisco as chairman as the chairman said. I think we are unique that the people that are talking about these issues are people that have a different mentality when it comes to immigration and who are not part of whats happening at the National Level where you have people like donald trump who are trying to scapegoat an entire immigrant community. So i think that the two resolutions that you have before you are two resolutions that are efforts on the part of good people that trust this in a responsible way. That said, i have to tell you, to me colleagues, that it is hard to fully understand the level of passion and the intensity of the feelings around this issue without without understanding what the last few weeks have meant, not just for the immigrant community, but for the entire latino community. When we saw the reaction from the public and from some of these players to the tragic death of ms. Steinly, what we saw was a number of individuals who were clearly exploiting that tragedy to move forward a larger agenda. If you dont see that happening, you see what is happening here in San Francisco. The tragedy happened on a given day and when the news broke of this, i was out of town and it was a holiday and we had a local news outlet do that and knocked on my door knowing i wasnt going to be there and the story at that point, campos, the former illegal alien refuses to answer questions about this tragedy. I ran into a senior Law Enforcement in this community who was telling me that he had recently a trip with his family outside this city and this is a pretty senior Law Enforcement official and he was asked in front of his family, i want to see your papers. Do you have government issued papers . That is what is happening and the reason why those of us who look like me are so passionate and sensitive about this is because whats happening in San Francisco as a result of this tragedy is having ramifications that go beyond San Francisco. So you have a situation where anyone who looks like me has to prove that they are in the country legally . In the eyes of a lot of people and they have to prove that we are not criminals. Now, you may not see it that way, but thats how it looks and how it feels to those of us who happen to have brown skin. Thats the context in which this is happening. And because of that, i think that in that context it is really important for San Francisco to have a very clear voice about where this country should go on this issue. Now there are specific points that are brought up around sanctuary process. The thing about the law is they have already addressed those points. People have raised the issue around what happens when someone is violent . Those issues have been addressed by due process by sanctuary. The point of my resolution today is very simple. Its to simply say to donald trump and all the politicians and scapegoaters out there who are hating this community, stop. No more hate. Stop blaming an entire community for something we dont even know what actually happened. The individual involved has been accused of something but they are still going through the process of what happened. So what we have tried to do is to provide some sanityey in the midst of this madness. We have put forward a package that has three components. One, that addresses an issue which, by the way, a government how does a federal Law Enforcement weapon end up in the wrong hands. A chief of police had their gun end up in the wrong hands. We have an ordinance that addresses that issue. And then the second piece is to minimize the contact between local Law Enforcement and immigration. We are codifying a process that is actually already in place where our District Attorney is working with our sheriff to make sure that if we are going to seek the transfer of an individual who is in immigration custody, that we do everything we can to make sure we actually want that individual transferred. So we are actually providing concrete solutions that would address some of the cases that have brought us here. The third point and the most important point and i want to thank the San FranciscoDemocratic Party which unanimously came out in agreement with this position is to say, we . We in San Francisco consistent with all the laws that passed want no involvement in the Priority Enforcement Program. At the end of the day thats the heart of this resolution. It simply says whatever happens Going Forward we in San Francisco will not participate in pep. Because we believe that the facts clearly demonstrate a community in a different name. As i have said before, we still have a pig and they try to put lip stick on this pig and the pep is this pig in disguise. Let me ask you this if San Francisco was right to come out against f com which we did. Why would we not come out against pep. Its about entangling local Law Enforcement with immigration. The separation between local Law Enforcement and immigration would be blurred and you have a situation where our Sheriffs Department, Police Department and their members would become an arm of immigration. And why is that important . I cannot tell you enough how critical it is for Law Enforcement to have the trust of any community, and as much as some of the people on the far right would like to ignore it. Undocumented people live in every part of our society. They live in every city and they live here in San Francisco. When undocumented people live in a situation where they do not trust Law Enforcement for fear that Law Enforcement becomes an arm of immigration, when they are victims of a crime, when they are witnesses to a crime, they are not going to come forward. And when they fail to come forward, that makes all of us less safe. There are examples after examples. An example in los angeles, chief bratton of the lapd, explained how he was for the concept of sanctuary because they had a homicide that was unsolved in l. A. It wasnt until a gentlemen who happened to be undocumented came forward and said this is what i saw and that homicide was solved. They caught the individual who had killed other people and they saved lives. Yet, in the context of whats happened here, thats not being discuss. Thats not a subject of discussion. Now, lets talk about the issue of violent individuals. I want to be very clear, ice is not without options if they need to gain access to an inmate in custody here in San Francisco. Whether or not we participate in pep, ice automatically receives the fingerprints of every inmate in San Francisco. They are aware of everyone who is incarcerated in San Francisco. If he want to get custody of an inmate who is dangerous. They can issue a warrant. A warrant will be issued. When we transfer people to ice without probable cause, without warrant, without review from a judge, we create a situation where u. S. Citizens and crime victims arrested by mistake can be turned over for immigration. I will point to a directive that was issued by the department of Homeland Security outlineing the priorities of this Priority Enforcement Program pep. One of the things that is listed and they have a number of items in terms of what they are prioritizing understand pep ands and i aliens convicted of an offense classified as a felony in the conviction that means it doesnt matter what kind of felony. Those of us who know the issue of Domestic Violence is an example know that there are many times that unfortunately a Domestic Violence victim is actually entangled in that system, in that process. When there are accusations on both sides a felony maybe implicated and maybe filed against that victim. So we are going to have a situation if we choose to participate in pep where these Domestic Violence victims in San Francisco would be turned over to ice. That goes against everything we are supposed to be about, that goes against everything we stand for. I heard that some in this hall are arguing against this resolution by citeing the republican legislation in congress that would withdraw funding for San Francisco or any city that maintains a sanctuary law. Let me be clear, whether we pass this resolution or any resolution or not. The republicans in congress are going to continue to go after San Francisco and they are going to continue to go after San Francisco unless we actually do away with our sanctuary policy. Even then i dont think that will be enough. Enough we and unless we are willing to say that our Law Enforcement is going to work hand in hand with immigration, i dont see them stopping. I dont think that our Public Policy should be guided by what republicans in congress may or may not do. So i ask my colleagues to keep this simple. Our laws already address all the issues that have been raised around violence in protecting Public Safety, but in the context of what is happening, it is really critical that San Francisco take the right position here and that we send a clear message that we are not going to scapegoat people. There are people who are watching other jurisdictions because as San Francisco goes, so will other jurisdictions. Now, i want to briefly Say Something about the other resolution that is being considered. Let me say that i understand. The intent of that resolution. I will be voting against that resolution because i believe that right now in the context of whats happening, our message should be clear. And second, i am interested in giving guidance to local Law Enforcement. The problem i have with the withdrawal of a memo is that it takes away direction, but it doesnt provide guidance in return. And quite frankly, some of the language thats embedded in that resolution, i think actually is legally inaccurate in terms of what is allowed under our local law. But, the point here is this i dont know that there are many issues here at this board that have sort of a long lasting impact. I think there have been handful since i have been on the board of supervisors in the last 7 years. This is one of those issues. What we do today is something that will have long lasting impact. Its something that is going to follow each and everyone of us who is sitting here and its going to follow the millions of people who are being impacted by whats happening. I ask you to please support this resolution. Lets make it clear that the city of Saint Francis is proud, proud to respect the dignity of every human being and we are not going to scapegoat an entire community. Thank you. We were going to schedule a recess at 11 00 because there is a rally going on. It is regarding this issue. I say this because before we pass our sanctuary rules, people were afraid to come forward not knowing whats going to happen. They were not going to report the Domestic Violence. If they witness something they were not going to come forward because they wouldnt know what would happen to them if they came forward. There was a fear of residents in San Francisco that they might be deported because they were doing something to protect their families, to protect their friends, to protect their community, to protect themselves. This cannot happen. This is about safety in our community. Because everybody here, im making the decision that we are not going to recess because this discussion is too important for us to stop the continuity of the thoughts here. So supervisor avalos . Supervisor john avalos i will let the sponsor of the other resolution supervisor farrell and i will speak after that. Supervisor farrell . Supervisor mark farrell thank you and thanks supervisor campos for your discussion. Im going to speak about the resolution that im introducing and not the first one at the moment. Back in july i introduced some forms and about the resolution that i will introduce. When the tragedy happened on pier 14 over the summer it brought on National Attention and brought out the worst here in antisentiment of our country and i would discuss the likes as donald trump to use our city as a scapegoat and our community as our escape scapegoat. There was a litany for all ordinances. There was back and forth between our mayor and Deputy Association ending with a request from the sheriff to request a hearing with the mayor to discuss Public Policies as well as from the board of supervisors. From my po viewpoint we dont need a massive rash of hysteria. We need a thoughtful look at what happened and common sense approach to ensuring the situation will not happen again. I firmly believe that we have needed time to let cooler heads prevail and take an objective look at policies that we have in place in San Francisco that 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 anticipat