Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  December 16, 2018 10:00pm-11:01pm PST

10:00 pm
>> to preface everything, there will be a full report compiled by the department of health which we are waiting on the radiological screening before we complete that. that will be in deep detail and all of the methods used. but to start with the asbestos, we used the t.e.m. method. it is a modified protocol used by the school district which is very stringent specific to asbestos, so it can identify exactly specific asbestos fibers. and so whatever type of fibers they might find. all of those samples -- sorry if i am too close. all the samples and the static and the personal monitoring samples, all came back nondetect. we used field blanks as far as box blanks to make sure there was no contamination putting the cassettes on the pumps themselves. as far as the lead goes, again, that was also the occupational setting that we were sampling in and static and personal monitoring samples and all those
10:01 pm
were set against cal-osha mandated levels for occupational exposure, and again, all those were nondetect for lead. as far as the settled dust, the settled dust was a collection of actual bulk dust throughout the warehouse itself, aened those were analyzed by phase contra microscopy to identify the particulates and no lead and asbestos was found, but a wide variety of other standard dust parameters that were found, plant material, things of that nature. it was very comprehensive as far as analyses. >> a before i go after the asbestos, was there any standard d like i talked about earlier, some scientist wills count and say not under five fibers or anything. you looked for fibers, so any fibers that were seen were -- >> there were no fibers seen. they go but structures. for t.e.m., it is structures. less than 70 structures per
10:02 pm
millimeter squared is a lot more stringent than p.c.m. which is phase contrast microscopy and this is the next level above osha. it is specific to asbestos. >> what about the radiological or however you say that? >> that is correct. that testing is yet to be done and is coming in january, mid january, by a certified health physicist. he is certified to do this and will be doing a comprehensive screening of the property itself, inside, outside, crawlspace. >> how can we find out and e.p.a. went out and went public with this. how can we find out what recommendations they are making when it comes to the radiological part of it? >> for the e.p.a. stuff, that is for hunters point and is a general different standard than the occupational setting for building 606. they are separate. >> i don't understand that. so hunters point is for residential development.
10:03 pm
we have the building 606 and is that industrial use? >> that is an occupational setting. it is not a 24/7 occupied space, whereas a residential would be. the residential standards for all kinds of different parameters are a lot lower because you are intended to be if you want to use the term exposed for a lot longer and duration 24/7 and in occupational is mandated eight hours or vice versa. >> a for the residential, it is more stringent testing because it is longer exposure. for building 606 it is occupational exposure and what is the time weighted average on an eight-hour day, is that what you are telling me? >> that is for osha is use time weighted average. we used e.p.a. modified testing in k-12 schools and the protocol modified to be specific to that site. but that was held to e.p.a. standards which is 70 structures or less. that is the same for schools, and we never got any structures found on any of the samples that we tested. >> so the question and this begs
10:04 pm
the question if we know we found a radiological and at hunters point they found that, but in that area of the shipyard t whole shipyard, why would we delay that testing until january? why wasn't that -- why wasn't that done first? >> so i can speak to that. so we had originally scheduled to have radiological screening done by our certified occupational health -- excuse me, certified health physicist. we were planning on having it done this month. we had some contractual issues we needed to work out. those have been rectified and so now we're looking at getting him here in mid january. it pushed us back a little bit and contract and working out contract issues. >> you know, we have had cases where people worked on the nuclear submarines and even if they didn't work with the reactors, they have little tags
10:05 pm
on them to show if they have any type of radiological exposure. i didn't realize we were waiting six months or six -- started in june or september? when did we start to do this? the idea of start to do the testing? back in the summer. >> the california department of public health or us? >> us, when we started looking into this. >> we originally met with members of building 606 in the end of july. and we came up with the plan of what the testing would look like. we had to actually kind of get all of the individuals that were going to be involved in the testing, the p.u.c., look for a sert fued health physicist and only a certain number of people that do this, find that, set the testing parameter, and make sure we are doing it the right way. and that we are not missing anything. it took time to build that and
10:06 pm
that is what we have been doing since then and doing the tests, and the final piece of the testing is the certified health physicist who is coming along in january after the first of the year. the other thing i want to stress is this is not a closed process by any means. it is more of a linear process in that we will have even after the certified health physicist coming out and does his testing and issues his report, we will have continued testing, as i mentioned, and certainly as concerns and come up with other areas of the building as has in the past, those are met, documented, and necessary testing and we do that through the department of public health. i don't want this to seem like it is a closed process. >> no, no. and i appreciate that. i understand planning takes time and protocols need to be put in place and the right people need to be hired.
10:07 pm
i have this thought if it's going to take six or eight months to get this in place, would it be feasible or advise to believe put these tags on the people to see if there is any type of rating that they are exposed while you are waiting for it to put in place? if they have any radiological exposure. wonder if that is feasible or help nfl any way. >> you were referring to --. >> they measure exposure radiological material and calculate what the body dose would be and is sent off to the body and analyze and accumulate throughout a year and the e.p.a. has set points for occupational settings, if radiological exposure versus civilian exposure. >> is that potentially a recommendation while we are waiting to put everything? in the six months, can we put a tag on people? >> that is not something that our health physicist has brought
10:08 pm
up as a concern for us. >> how about blood tests? any blood tests our people can take? >> some of the folks are being tested for the blood lead levels, but not specific for radiological presence. >> we know it leads to a lot of radiological testing and nuclear cleaning out there and stuff like that. i am just wondering if that is in the forefront of the -- for a varietyover reasons, it is lagging. >> in regards to personal testing, the navy has personnel who are actively were acting on the site over periods of time. and they conduct testing and with the direct contact with the contaminated soil and potentially contaminated soil. we can request the data from them and the data they have shown so far that there hasn't
10:09 pm
been any exposures to individuals who were in direct contact and performing the surveys. and we can stress that tomorrow. >> would it be really expensive to put those on our people? or that is not really feasible? >> i don't think it's a recommendation that our health physicist would make at this point based on the building history and its location. it is not necessary. but based on his report and in our survey and in january, we can make some further recommendations at that time. >> i don't know. i am still concerned about it. >> commissioner -- go ahead. >> an i want to ask all three of you gentlemen, i thank you for your work and your report. based on test results received to date, do you have a recommendation for this commission that we should do something immediately to remove
10:10 pm
the employees of the police department from 606 or any area there? >> i can speak to that and then certainly can have the department of public health also give their thoughts. but there has been no -- there has been nothing to date, nothing that the test results have shown in any of the teps that we have been taken that would indicate that we would have to take any immediate action beyond the action that we have taken to protect the health and safety of the members of 606 and the people that work out there. as i said, at the beginning of the presentation, that is what's driving this is the health and safety of those people out there. and that they feel safe. and i think that's another big part of it. and so that is what we have done and if there was anything that we felt that needed to be done to protect their health and safety, we certainly could do that. and we haven't found that at
10:11 pm
this time. and we do have the regular meetings and regular communication with them to make sure they feel safe, too. that is the other big part of it, too. and meeting on monday and we did address the issues. we left after monday with the report and in agreement with what we both just heard. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> thanks, vice president mazzucco. and just, i may have missed this in a lot of the words that you used that i honestly don't understand. and a dec marker and that was
10:12 pm
positive for what? >> the dec marker and was found in parcel a1 similar in this area. i am not 100% certain where that was found. that was part of department of public health survey scan for that area. and that marker made by the navy and had basically a radioactive material in the center that made it glow. that dec marker which came off the ship was buried in the soil. it was possibly dropped there and buried in the soil when they did their scans, they hit on that. they dug down, they pulled out that deck marker. they conducted tests of the soil
10:13 pm
that came out of that hole, and conducted tests of the hole and found that the radiation had come from that deck marker itself. and it hadn't moved to the surrounding soil. >> and you are using the term deck marker. what does that mean. a deck marker is a disc put on the deck of ships and is basically like it would glow at night so they could sailors could see where they were walking. >> i understand. this is not -- is this some sort of radiological scanning that was being done for the area? correct. and that is already done for the district and that is done from
10:14 pm
parcel a1 and parcel a2 right here. the navy with the new round of testing will be conducting testing in parcel g which is right across the street from parcel 606. that will begin in, i am told, march. and you don't have any concerns about anything along the lines of deck markers in parcel e and the area where building 606 is? >> that i can't speak to. i don't -- i don't know what is in the oil out there. what i can speak to is the building itself. and the immediate surrounding area. that is what we have been testing. that is what we have done the water tests to date for the radiation to determine if there is any radiation in the water right now, the soil, that came
10:15 pm
out of the back of 606 which is already been tested and the future testing that will be done by the certified health physicist on the radiological screen on that settled dust within the building and then the surrounding areas as well. >> okay. thank you. appreciate it. >> commissioner elias. >> thank you for the presentation. i actually have a request that the information, specifically the results from the tests that you spoke of tonight, be disseminated to the district stations. when i was visiting district stations, officers had questions about the status of the 606 building and i know you said the presentation is on our website. i would like that information disseminated to them. it is my understanding that some had worked at building 606 way back in the day and i think they were interested to the status and what the results were and what the tests were being done. that would be my request. >> sure, certainly.
10:16 pm
and as you mention, we have them in electronic format on the commission's website, so we certainly can put that out for the membership as well. >> great, thank you. commissioner? >> thank you. just really quick, i wanted to make sure that just piggy backing on commissioner dejesus, one of the things that was most concerning is as we talked about the different levels and what we were testing -- we were testing the and testing the water, but from a health perspective that the officers are healthy and safe. i want to make sure as we sit back and wait for the tests to come in to look at our officers and their health and see what it is that we might be able to do that on that level. we know the residents in that area, there is high levels of asthma. ewith know that. there are things we know that we should be taking into consideration as we think about the men and women that are out there. i want to touch on that and didn't lose sight of that. >> sure, certainly. >> i have a question for our -- department of public health folks.
10:17 pm
in the article they talked about a fire that was burning and wouldn't stop burning and we just buried it. what was that caused by? >> that was a historic -- not specific to this investigation. it was prior my residency here in pedestrian san francisco apt the department of public health. >> what would cause a fire to continually burn and not be able to be put out? that is obviously in the soil there. >> i really can't speak to that. i don't know the answer. i'm sorry. >> all right. thank you. >> i guess to follow up, i forgot about the fire. and for you sitting here today, would that be a concern, that particular area where they had that particular fire? >> and that burned for a long time. couldn't be put out.
10:18 pm
>> 18 months. >> we absolutely would do monitoring to make sure that our people are safe at 606. and we would do whatever sampling was necessary to determine what was in the smoke or off gassing from that fire to make sure that it was or was not safe. -- >> but the spot itself is still there. would it be recommended in that particular area to do the testing to see what chemical kept that -- >> certainly. >> so i think that speaks to the navy's testing that they are going to be conducting. i don't know exactly where that was. whether it's in parcel g or what other surrounding parcels, but that would be included in the future testing that they do. >> a lot of the officers talk about the fire they never put out. it seems that it was close to 606. they could visually see while
10:19 pm
they were working there. it would something that i would think you want to go even after the fact look at that particular soil and see if there is contamination there or see what it was. >> thank you very much. i appreciate you coming this evening. again, chief, thank you for your efforts. you have a whole new career here. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> call the next line item. >> item 2b, d.p.a. director's report. report on d.p.a. activities and announcements. limited to a brief description of the activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for future commission meeting. >> good evening. >> thank you. my brief overview that is the overview and where we are on the agency and cases open from the 612 cases so far this year. and this time last year we were
10:20 pm
at 476 cases and the differences from the rising spike and in numbers and terms of cases and we are at 556 versus 659 last year. we have currently 278 cases that are pending on the records. so far this year and mediated 23 cases. of the cases that are past 270 days, we have six that are active. there is actually a total of 21, but 15 of those are being told. and technology area, the civic bridge, we have continued our program with the bridge ongoing with the agency. and we are going over the overall goals from the agency working with us and developing our plan for achieving those
10:21 pm
goals. we also have right now focussing on terms of modernizing the operations and hardware and we got the computers and are looking at modernizing the stations which includes purchasing the case management systems and with the specific bridge and will publish the r.q. with the vendors and that is something we weren't able to do before because of the operating system we had. and now that we have the equipment, we are able to finally look at case management system, which will bring us into the 21st century finally.
10:22 pm
>> commissioner hirsch: can you
10:23 pm
indicate the reason for the spike. it's important for the public to be reminded why that curse. >> i think the primary reason of the outrage being done by the agency. the agency now is in places in a variety of communities across the city and we have partnered with a lot of the community advocates including with the board of supervisors and city hall and mayor's office and local communities to appear at broader events. i think it's not due in small part from the material that we're able to produce now and share with audiences about what dpa is and how we operate and how people learn about us. i think that's the biggest reason. other two reasons are the improvement of the language access line so that people can contact and work with our agency, speak languages other than english. we had a system so that people
10:24 pm
can call, drop by or contact us online now to make -- to get our attention and coordinate with us. the final reason i think that we have had this spike is the improvement in the fix with technology which just -- it worked before but it was so problematic, it was difficult for people to reachous without actually driving down or taking couple of transportation and showing up in our office. now people can contact us through the internet on a cell phone and that is only going to improve as we get new operating system and we're able to launch a new website for the agency. >> previously meetings you have educateindicated some challenges of hiring.
10:25 pm
have you been able to staff up? >> we've a number of hires. it's still arduous process. part of the challenge has been specifically with doing the background checks for our agency. which has one of the most stringent background processes in the entire city. that has added as much as 4.5 to 5 months into the process. we're talking about when i first came over to the agency an an agency that had vacancies filled than staff. we're nearing end of it now. we got most of the executive positions and senior positions have been filled. last little pipeline that's coming through now are investigators and some of the
10:26 pm
admin staff. as you can imagine, every single staff member is crucial to the overall operation and we're getting close. >> that's good to hear. thank you. >> any further questions for director emerson. call the next item >> item 2c, commission reports. limited to a brief description of brief activities determining to whether calendar any of the issues raised. commission president's report and commissioner's report. >> any announcements secretary kikshaw. >> we are back here city hall in room 400 at 5:30. >> couple of things, one i like
10:27 pm
to acknowledge that today is the one year anniversary of the passing of mayor ed lee. i attended a memorial this morning along with a number of members of our department, command staff, other commissioners. it was quite packed. i did want to honor his service tonight. whatever side of the aisle you're on, i don't think anybody ever doubted that mayor ed lee was driven by public service and making our city better for all communities. i want to acknowledge that tonight. second thing i wanted to do, i wanted to -- i got a number of
10:28 pm
calls over the weekend that my local district captain at central district was going to be transferred and a resident who lived in north beach for 24 years, right off grant avenue, his leadership into the department has been really great for our neighborhood and district. different districts has a number of challenges, ranging from union square to lower market street, chinatown, north beach. i think that's captain yep handled all the complexities of the neighborhoods. neighborhoods that were involved in a way that did a lot of pride for our city.
10:29 pm
i also want to acknowledge that there was some concern that was raised with me about the relationships he's built with the chinese community in chinatown in central district. i think he's done really good job. there's been a lot of history that i think we as a city still need to overcome to properly represent chinatown and our chinese residents. i'm glad to know that the captain, robert yick will be stepping in. i want to thank captain yep who enjoyed living there and as also as commissioner who's seen the work he's done within the district. so thank you. >> i wanted to let the public
10:30 pm
know there will be a community meeting regarding the m.o.u. on december 19th. it's an important subject. it's one of two community meetings that the school district is going to be putting on with respect to the m.o.u. december 19th at 6:00 a.m. at 555 franklin. that is one of two community meetings. the second meeting is in january. unfortunately there was a date wrong. i don't want to give you the wrong thing. >> anything further? hearing none. public comment. >> we have item 2d commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings actions. >> we have things we talked about last week and things coming down pipe.
10:31 pm
we head into january, let's start deal with those issues. anything further anybody like to add. time for public comment. >> items 2a through d. >> thank you. >> public comment regarding line items 2a through d. hearing none. public comment closed. >> item 3, to adopt general order release of police report discussion and possible actions. >> good evening commissioner co, vice president mazzucco. we're here to present on general order 3.16 release of police
10:32 pm
reports. commissioners you have before you an updated version of general order 3.16 which was updated to adopt provisions of family code section 6228. that order updates release of police report to allow the police reports to victims or their representatives whereas before we continent release reports redacted under provisions of law regarding domestic violence, sexual assault and elder abuse. the provisions have been inserted into general order 3.16. we updated this. we met with internal stakeholders and we met request external stakeholders. we had discussions around processes for the release of these police reports and came up with this policy to present to you for a review and adoption. >> this is a policy you worked
10:33 pm
on with the department of police accountability? >> correct. we did give us a recommendations and we've included some of the recommendations they were part of the stakeholderring meetings as well in the development of this general order. >> great. i know that the police accountability had some stakeholders present tonight. i ask that we keep it tight please and we appreciate all the work everybody done. i think it's controversial one. >> i will add, the policy is a policy that we believe we can work with. it's the process we're going to develop is still under way and we're still working with the stakeholders to develop a process as we all know, we implemented general order, there's a process that we implement. we have changes that go along
10:34 pm
with that as we learn the process. the policy is something i think we all agreed on coming in today's meeting. >> thank you. >> good evening. i appreciate you taking time and stakeholders here. i want to give a overview how we got to this process and also really provide a shoot out to the stakeholders in the trenches working in courts at the stations trying to get police reports. it's been their persistence that enable us to get to where we are today i want to highlight few requests recommendations that our agency has made. how we got here today was back in 2017. there are stakeholders who came to say they're not getting police reports in time. the reason why this is critical is, police reports are what enables victims of domestic
10:35 pm
violence, sexual assault, when they go to court, they need that incident report. they need it immediately. they need it when they take time off to go to court to get a restraining order. they need it when they need to move out immediately and not be jeopardized by breaking their lease. we worked with commander lazar and worked with captain troy dangerfield. they were great problem solving and giving us assistance. the chief, he took this on as a priority and we appreciate chief, your leadership in bringing this to the commission as soon as possible. the collaboration, again, it's the individual who are here tonight and many who couldn't come tonight that really brought it to the forefront. ultimately, when we talk about the next steps we're working with the department. we've made recommendations to make this accessible is to and the website information how they
10:36 pm
can get the incident report, it's a new concept. even though the laws has been in place since 1991 make sure that website is up to date. the way to get the incident report, by email, fax or snail mail. lastly, with want to see compliance. we made recommendations in july that the department show they're doing the compliance required. with no further due, i like to introduce you to sf ward, christy chan to address you and two of the attorneys from bay legal who has been instrumental to talk to you as well. >> thank you very much. good evening. >> good evening. thank you for this opportunity to speak about this importance of the proposed changes to release of police reports department general order. to allow sexual assault and domestic violence survivors to access the report within five
10:37 pm
days. i'm christy chan. san francisco is california office of emergency services and funded by the crisis centre serving san francisco city and county. since 1973 we have provided crises services and individual group counseling along with medical and legal and social services. our 24-hour crises line responds to about 3000 calls each year to provide counseling and advocacy to sexual assault survivors. we've been part of the l.e.p. meets to address experiences our clients face. we are positioned t -- to why is
10:38 pm
important to readily access such report. before i talk about those things i want to acknowledge the hard work san francisco police department has done to enhance its response to sexual assault survivors. in the past years, there has been important new order to ensure regarding the status of cases monthly. police officers now respond to san francisco women against rape office it take sexual assault reports. at the same time, survivors also face roadblocks when attempting to access the police reports. survivors also contact us before when this is the case. sometimes they tell us their request has been denied but they are uncertain why.
10:39 pm
some survivors also report a lack of courtesy or respect when they are requesting report or follow-up on report. the report maybe necessary to obtain a restraining order or immigration case. in addition, survivors may need to provide employers a report to justify time off from work or school or they may need a report to make a housing transfer. both the lieutenant from sbu and stpd records department and made themselves personally available when survivors with experiencing problems accessing reports in a timely valuable. this new general order is a
10:40 pm
vital structure remedy. in order to have a clear understanding of the impact of the general order, we would also suggest a quarterly mod monitor -- monitoring how police reports are denied. thank you very much for your time and consideration. >> thank you for everything you do. greatlyappreciated. thank you. good evening. >> good evening commissioners and chief. thank you so much for the opportunity to address you all and provide comments tonight. i'm staff attorney at bay area legal aid. i'm a staff attorney in the domestic violence unit. i provide domestic violence representation for a clients in their family law and their immigration cases. the policy itself that we're here to talk about tonight is great. we all support the policy. the problem is the
10:41 pm
implementation of the policy. family code was inbe acted in 1999. we're trying to implement and follow and enforce the statute that was enacted 20 years ago. the statute requires police reports to be released within five days. we're not getting them within five days. in the history of working on this issue which means last two years we're seeing police reports realized 22 or 117 day. i have an outstanding police report. it has been 260 days to date since i requested the report. we have seen improvements since july of 2018 when we met and we on conferred and requested real action. sfpd ensured that we were in compliance with the code. however, we are still experiencing delays.
10:42 pm
last month two survivors respected reports, to date they have not received them. this raises serious concerns about being able to obtain the report. last month sfpd an auto reply email. we have serious concerns about how the general order is implemented. sfpd implementation of family code 6628. to provide survivors of domestic violence human tracking and abuse with their police reports quickly so they can obtain civil restraining orders. first issue is sfpd we believe is still incorrectly relying upon government code 62454 to
10:43 pm
withhold reports. the family code was enacted 10 years after that government code provision. it has no effect on whether or not survivors should receive reports timely. of course, when i'm representing a client, i can advocate for that report to be released regardless of the provisions in the government code. a litigant is unable to do this. they're being denied the report. currently, sfpd permits requests to be made in person, email or fax and this is wonderful and we do appreciate this accommodation. however, i understand there maybe a proposal to require identification be produced in order for a survivor to receive the report. that that the survivor's identification can be produced to sfpd. this is a significant barrier to compliants obtaining the report. we hope that provision would noting implemented. to give some examples, we have
10:44 pm
survivors living in domestic violence shelters across the bay area. what that means in practice is that for a client living for a away in a shelter to get to third veto street, that takes sx hours and seven bus transfers. for clients with absolutely no identification, this would prohibit release of the report at all. just last week i met a client who was a survivor. she fled in the military of the -- middle of the night. she had nothing but the clothe on her back. she was treated for physical abuse. her only identification was the hospital bracelet on her wrist. even with representation, the quickest we can replace her identification is going to be at least three weeks. undocumented client. these survivors face even double the barrier they are living in
10:45 pm
fear. the majority of my undocumented clients have only their passports as their identification. we might see -- we might be a sanctuary city, this will require survivors with a foreign passport, no u.s. visa to enter a police station and present their passport as identification in order to obtain their police report. we're effectively asking undocumented individuals in san francisco to enter a police station and show proof of their undocumented status to law enforcement. this would create a barrier for survivors. we would see a decline in any request for police reports in san francisco. there's a real harm when these reports are late. it's important to understand that. i understand that the commission is comprised of many attorneys. just to note, when there's no
10:46 pm
police report, i can't subpoena an officer. i can't prepare exhibits, i can't meet my trial deadlines. what that ends up meaning, my complaint can't get a domestic violence restraining order. the family court has asked to review police reports. there are times i can't produce it. my clients have been denied restraining orders. there are other times where there is a report i haven't serviced it timely. the client when faced with a proposition of going into court with he said she said situation without having the documentation evidence, i don't know if i can do it. they'll withdraw completely. unrepresented litigants with these barriers will certainly not be able to obtain the repo report.
10:47 pm
if i still can't get them timely, unrepresented litigants will not be able to get them >> chief, i know you want to respond. can we have a respond please? i apologize this supposed to be short presentation. and they're not. i'm getting feeling this department general order is not ready tonight because of the presentations that are happening now. i maybe moving just to take this off calendar this evening. i need to hear from the chief. >> i can speak to that. i think that what she's saying, the implementation of the order that is before the commission, we do not oppose. it is necessary. it is implementing a statute that is straightforward that was enacted in 1999. what is controversial, though --
10:48 pm
we don't object to that part. we do want to indicate that this order would not be before this commission today if it weren't from her standing here and she worked so hard. we threaten to sue but we didn't sue because the chief indicated that they will be in compliance and if we stopped threatening to sue, they would work with the department to change things around. we honored that request. we didn't sue. we didn't talk to the press. we have been kept in the dark. if we gone to court, we would have a court order. we've heard some of these horrible obstacles that have been created. we don't want to wait another 20 years or another two months. we want the commission to direct the department to talk to us and to include us and other
10:49 pm
representatives that represent victims of domestic violence to implement this statute now. >> can we hear from the chief first? there's a whole new issue raised. she wanted to community the advocate for all the work they did. we're hearing something now about a process that's not on the agenda tonight and that's not part of the order. i do want to get a response. you raised important issue, counsel. i want to hear deputy chief says about it. >> thank you commissioner. some of the things that she mentioned we are continually working on. we agreed to have a web page that gives the survivors an opportunity to submit their
10:50 pm
request through email, through snail mail or in person applications. we agreed to meet with them on the processes. we agreed with lot of their concerns. i don't think the issue is with the policy, they're raising concerns they want us to consider it as we move forward developing the process. we're not disagreeing not to implement. we'll continue to meet with them to headache sur -- make sure wee it easy as possible for community members and representatives as well as the department to make sure they get what they need. i don't think we disagreed on what the issues they're raising. they're raising their concerns to you as they raising them to us. >> i think just to reiterate, i don't think the issue is with the policy itself. what everyone speaking to both
10:51 pm
advocateadvocates are talking ae about implementation enhancement as it relates to the policy. >> we're talking again is processes. they're referring to 6254 a section of law erefewe refer to. our member have cleared direction as to what law to follow. they will no longer be required to redact the report. they can release the reports to the survivors. as to what unit is responsible, the way the practice has been, cis would get the information,
10:52 pm
forward it to sbu and send it back. we recognize created a time line. now we're going to b leave that responsibility with the crime investigation service unit and redact it or forward. just this afternoon, i had this conversation with tamara on this issue. they're raising concerns that we're not disagreeing with. we're going to work to develop the process. >> chief scott? >> yes, commissioner. i want ted to add there are eigt orders. there's a lot of other documents that have to be revised as a result of this change in order to achieve what we agreeing on. pooter of the -- part of this
10:53 pm
process is to update all the documents. it's not simple solution. we have met with -- we had many meetings on this subject. it is our responsibility to get this fix and get this done. i did promise we would do that. we will. >> first step is department general order. we'll start with that. >> i spent the majority of my career as a prosecutor both as
10:54 pm
state prosecutor and federal prosecutor working with domestic violence victims and sex trafficking victims. this sounds like this is part of a larger conversation. it's hugely important to me personal. there are few things that i care more about. it is the reason why i loved my job as a prosecutor. i would like to have a status update and hear more about how this is going and how the changes are being implemented. as everyone in this room knows, terrible things happen to these victims. they often end up being homicide victim. i would like to hear how the implementation is going, how things are progressing. i think no one disputes that it needs to be amended.
10:55 pm
>> i want to talk to the fact that there are implementations draft in process as chief mentioned. you need to be changing. i don't dispute that at all. i think the problem is that we were promised that full implementation could occur by july. which was much later than we wanted. we agreed to wait. now i'm sorry we didn't sue. july was too long. i understand that you have a process and a fairness to go through but we really need on behalf of domestic violence victims an assurance that this process won't take too long. it's already been too long. we would like some direction besides a status update. but some encouragement to have a full hearing.
10:56 pm
we really didn't have many meetings with the chief. we've been shut out. we understand they are draft circumstancselfishcirculated. >> 20 years old, that's what we've been criticized by the d.o.j. our d.g.o.s outdate and this is not compliant with the law. more importantly, we should have quarterly reports on this particular d.g.o. in particular if they are complying with family code 6228 and if they are not why not. if we have that on a quarterly,
10:57 pm
that would light a fire to get those things done and get them on time. we would know then every quarter whether they are complying with this code. i would say we amend this d.g.o. or sentence in we have quarterly reports in regarding family code 6228 and listing how many report were made and how many were done in compliance with the code. i don't know in that helps. that's what i would suggest. >> it might be helpful to note, bay area legal aid has offices all over the bay. i can tell you that san francisco police department is the only department that is not releasing police reports within five days under family code 6228. we're not seeing this in alameda
10:58 pm
county. we have reached out to other legal aid organizations and other direct service providers and inquired if they are seeing same thing. >> i appreciate that. i know the chief is working hard. there isn't reason why we can't comply with the law. i would add to that, the vice president can set a committee, we can put a commissioner on to these meetings. >> i just went through a process. i believe we're wrapping up with director of policy to help shepard through the deaf and hard of hearing d.g.o. i will be happy to make myself
10:59 pm
available to work with sf ward and bay area legal aid and the department. if we're comfortable passing this tonight, either as it is or with the amendment, i think we should do so. we can start emailing each other tomorrow. i will help shepard this throu through. i know the department is doing lot of and making lot of positive changes. this is embarrassing. i practice -- i represent people with restraining orders. i understand the process that you go through. i do understand that this is a unique challenge in san francisco. this law exist and we need to fix this. i like to work with you folks to get there >> if i can chime in, when i
11:00 pm
hear other police agencies are doing this in five days. i don't think there's a reason why we can't. our goal is to pass this. it's a fine amendment commissioner dejesus recommended this. thank you all for bringing this. we need to get these reports out in five days or less because of the situations we're dealing with. i want that to start tonight. thank you commissioner for being on this. we need to move forward with it. this was not part what we were going to do tonight. unfortunately, we have an agenda that we have to stick to. >> i had two points. my first question was this had an effect on this. we're still waitinon


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on