Transcripts For SFGTV LIVE BOS Govt Audits And Oversight Committee 20151001

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 Francisco Democratic 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 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 and i know in response that he has made in his resolutions that sheriff mirkarimi is here to respond. I just want to be very clear about something because i think it needs to be said. There may be differences of opinion between supervisor farrell and sheriff mirkarimi. There is a sheriffs campaign thats going on, and there are people who feel strongly either way about that campaign. I personally am not involved in that campaign. And i think this has to be said. Whatever one thinks about Ross Mirkarimi and the Sheriffs Office and what one thinks about mark farrell on the board of supervisors or anyone of us, this issue is not about one individual. This issue is about a very important principle. But at the end of the day, its hurting an entire community. So whatever political differences people have, do not hold a community hostage because of those differences. The problem i have with where we are today is that instead of talking about principles and talking about getting guidance to our Law Enforcement, we are trying to focus on individuals. And i will say that to supervisor farrell, i will say that to sheriff mirkarimi, whatever differences you may have its not about those differences. It is about a very important principle and an entire community is caught in the middle. So lets move away to i am personalizing this issue and talk about the principle at hand. I hope this is what happens Going Forward because politicians can score political points, but at the end its people in these communities that get hurt. Supervisor norman yee okay. Sheriff, would you like to come up . Sure. Hello, again. I look forward to having a conversation with you. The Sheriffs Department and myself sent a letter in july to the board of supervisors and the mayor to encourage this conversation even sooner. First it would be negligent if we did not roll back the clock to review how rearrived at this place and that comments made by supervisor farrell in providing a context and framework for how we arrived at this place are inaccurate. I think that to let that go unanswered would be inaccurate of me. First of all, we did not seek out mr. Lopez sanchez as it was inferred. There are two types of warrants that exist. There is a District Attorney warrant and there is a bench warrant. As the example given by supervisor farrell in the commentary that we could have interrupted the purpose of why mr. Lopez sanchez was returned to San Francisco would have been accurate if it was a District Attorney warrant because we do this all the time. But if its a bench warrant as an extension of the courts, we were then obligated to fulfill the order of the court to facilitate transportation. When we received the call from the bureau of federal prisons in contact with the immigration contacts and enforcement that we were following law. As is expected of San Francisco. And yes, you could have predicted that having mr. Lopez sanchez here for 20yearold marijuana unresolved bench warrant for possession would have been dismissing which in fact it was. However, we could not interrupt that process which is why i said which was not mentioned earlier in supervisor farrells comments that i made a recommendation to mayor lee and that is passed to the board that if you want to address the unpurged felony warrant with San Francisco, San Francisco does not purge felony warrant that we install an Administrative Law judge. To date we have not received an answer to this point and to date as i have been asking since july 15th, for clarity. That means that the forcing of any framing with regard to discussion here. It is also clear that what remains unanswered is why a bench warrant was activated this time around when the defendant had been deported more than four times during the existence of that act of bench warrant and all of a sudden it was delivered upon. No one has ever been able to answer that question. Concurrently we continued to support sanctuary city law. In the resolution to rescind sheriffs policy with regard to our communication instruction is completely in conflict with sanctuary city law. It is i think irresponsible in framing it that it is a gag order and that is what really in flames i think the very debate and the personalizing as supervisor campos and avalos were speaking to. The policy does arrive by city law and it does not seek from immigration and federal authorities. We can speak to that. Rescinding that policy is dangerous. While you say that you do not want to proactively stipulate, rescinding this and this still must be rectified. We do seek legal clarity and yet to this day nobody has respond today that request. In that letter, we believe certainly sets the stage if you respond in how we can comport sanctuary city law, due process for all, to trust that in federal law uc section 8 explains altogether that how are we then to provide proper notification to ice without violating the other laws then we welcome that. We absolutely welcome that because it is our Mission Objective to adhere to all laws. But also if you want us to notify ice of any release date, then we want to know to what extent. What are the parameters. Is it parameters under the notification of sanctuary city or parameters for due process for all. How far back, if someone has a felony or violent felony depending if you are invoking sanctuary city or invoking due process for all, how old should the felony be or how serious should the felony be or is it the felt the felt that you nature of your conviction. If we are doing that, its a sanctuary city to begin with to inherent conflicts with 12821. We look forward to any of this discussion so if you want to advance greater uniformity, we are more than happy to do that, but asking us to rescind something and not have anything in the alternative is reckless at best and framing it is is irresponsible. Notifying of a release means transporting and from San Francisco. Ice is pulling back from retention. What they are asking the city of San Francisco to do is to move to an era of notification. So the scenario is this if we see less detention request and more for request for notification, then its the lying duck who is at 3 00 a. M. Who may not have the act for legal. Because it says to contact our legal office for clarification or go why its not a gag order. Then what they do is call ice and say mr. Or mrs. Xyz is leaving our custody. Once they leave our doors, then the impression, suppositions and the reality is that ice advance vans pull around to pick people up. I thought this was what we were trying to get away from. So leaving that possibility that we are aiding and betting to the notification process so if someone is exiting our custody then we then absolve ourselves because we are acting consistent with sanctuary city and due process for all, then i think that we are lying to ourselves and being intellectually dishonest by the fact that ice has been informed to when to pick somebody up unless we have parameters as to guide us who those somebodies are and that affects the conflict to due process for all. Because that is in conflict to what is stipulated as to who it is that we would be subject to deat tainment and silent on the notification. The question is is this the policy that the city would like us to pursue . If it is the policy, then in an open and transparent way thats fine. There was a letter sent september 28th stating that every sheriff in the state of california, a lot less liberal than ours that there is an untenable position, thats exactly what the letter says from the state Sheriffs Association to the president. An untenable situation on the question of deat tainment they are we are looking for some smr some answer on the question of notification because if its detaining on the notices of notification, then its changing the tactic completely and puts us more in the detainer business instead of asking us to use the discretion on which person gets the phone call or not. Then i think we should all really i think describe to the idea of having an open and clear law on which population that is. That we would like to see, i think, subjected to those carve outs regarding cooperation, collaboration, notification and detainment with ice. So, more than happy to answer any questions. That sets the framework of where we are at and i believe that is some issues you would like us to follow up on. Supervisor norman yee thank you, supervisors, any questions . Seeing none, thank you very much, sheriff. So, at this time we are going to start with Public Comment. I have cards. As i call your name, go ahead and lineup on this side of the room. Sanchez, ruiz, maria ayala, audrey martinez, Maria Hernandez. Cmon up. You have two minutes to speak. Public speaker hello, good morning. My name is Anita Sanchez from the immigrant youth bay coalition. Im here today to tell you why you shouldnt support this. It supports ice. Should ice be trust nd our communities . No. This is why. In the Early Morning ice raided the homes of my 67yearold grandfather and they took him. My black grandfather was put in handcuffs and a victim of fraudulent immigration lawyer resulting in him getting a deportation order. As a resident since 1992 would qualify for obamas Immigration Reform. We called ice and asked for information and they provided inconsistent information. Ice violated his right to due process by attempting to detain him before he was heard before due process. Transparency. They do not follow the guidelines. They are held liable. There are others who are separate d from their families. He like thousands of others caught up in the system. Ice lied to us, our family and our community and to you. Ice by obtaining 34,000 a day. Supervisor norman yee thank you, ms. Sanchez. Next up . Public speaker hello, supervisors, thank you for your time, my name is ruiz, an attorney with the center. In jurisdictions that allow us they will contain ice hold notification and we have every single fingerprint and we are still going to see constitutional rurngs with isis. In jurisdictions where Law Enforcement might detain someone moments even longer to give ice that extra time to pick up that individual. You can still see an unlawful detention even with ice notification. Ice has a bevy of tools at their disposal to arrest someone even here in San Francisco. We have an Immigration Court and Detention Center close by. We have an ice center in San Francisco. They have a bevy of tools at their disposal. A study shows that ice recent enforcement has 1 800 0000000 dedicated to it. That is more than anyone other federal agency combined. I dont understand how any agency would assist one of the well funded federal agencies and this can also lead to racial profiling. There was one study that shows whether there was an uptake in racial profiling. More African Americans and latinos were stops. Additionally there is we have a criminal Justice System to address. Thank you, ms. Ruiz. Public speaker good morning, everyone. My name is martinez representing cuba against violence. I want to keep pep away from everywhere it is because it is just making me anxious and bringing out a lot of fear and also i feel that if pep gets in contact with the police or ice altogether is going to take me back to the violence and situations that im surviving from and the hate that i have survived this far. Im here in San Francisco because i believe in their values as a sanctuary city and equality rights and thats why im transgendering in this program and im not comfortable of being safe in the streets and just trying to get out of my house. I want them to stop setting us up for failure because we are brown and latinos. We are people who can work and be productive citizens but being set up for failure for like this last occasion like the pier to not let us be human beings. I feel that ice and the police shouldnt be working together. Because our families are already hurt with so much hate crimes and so much violence with racism, sexism, and we need to have some respect and this citys values that equal rights that we can be as supportive with beings and productive citizens. Thank you. Public speaker [ spanish speaker ] interpreter my name is maria. Im here with mujeres unddas. I want to share with you a story that happened. A man fell to the floor with bleeding from his head. I wanted to report it. So at the moment that this incident was very early in the morning. I was with my daughter and we wanted to do something but at that moment my entire filled with fear all the way from my legs up my body and i just ran away. So what i dont want is the following. I want to be very clear. I was involved in Domestic Violence. Im a survivor of Domestic Violence. I dont want to come back to those days where women who are victimized have a lot of fear because they know that police are working with immigration again and they start reporting that i dont want us to go back to those days. So, again, i want to emphasize that i dont want the fear to prevent us from reporting minor crimes so they become major crimes. That happened to me where i was afraid to report something that happened and it grew and grew. I dont want to go back to that time. And again to finish, my fear is that i would be deported and separated from my children. Thank you very much. Supervisor norman yee either like to call the rest of the speaker cards. Father Richard Smith, sarah hugheson, gloria davis, nelson rodriguez, mariam troy gan, kitsia martinez. Public speaker hi. Good morning. Thank you for taking the time to hear us today. My name is rose con, from the San Francisco lawyers committee. Where i founded the relief project that specializes in serving and advocating immigrants for criminal conviction. Every time they are fingerprinted by Law Enforcement that is sent automatically to law ice. They have all the information to location and specifically target that individual. Let us be clear there is nothing in todays resolution or the existing memo that will in any way alter ices power to identify and report. Even though we are on the fight to defend deportation, its a swift process that happens everyday. What supervisor campos no on pep resolution just as recognized over again through the years that there is no reason for Law Enforcement to take on any additional role in ices policing efforts. They have the ability to do it themselves. Let us say that ice does not promote Public Safety. Those who are in prison and finish their sentences are promptly reported. When they have additional notification targeting my client a 67yearold grandmother lived in this country for 40 years, she suffered a long sentence for drugs. Thank you very much. Public speaker good morning, im father Richard Smith from st. John. We need to separate the issues between ice and local Law Enforcement. I want to tell you about the story of ricardo and his family. He lived in guatemala. The gangs move in and they said we want to take your business and when he refused, they said we are going to kill you and your family. They fled. After they crossed the border, ricardo witnessed a crime and he went up to Law Enforcement and said i saw what happened. Im willing to testify on behalf of the victim. The Law Enforcement officer when he discovered that ricardo was without paper took him into custody and he was eventually handed over to ice, put in detention for 9 months. His wife and daughter came to San Francisco barely able to survive physically, living in fear not even knowing where he was when he got lost in the system. Many of us were downtown in front of ice for hours and hours during the 9 months telling the story demanding that he be released. Finally the deportation order came friday morning that he was going to be deported following wednesday. My parish and other people took up a collection to send his wife and daughter to texas to give him one last hug. They knew if they sent him back to guatemala they would never see him again. They could not hug him and only talked through the glass. We demanded they look at his file and finally they looked at it and realized not only is he not a high priority but hes eligible for a visa because he was able to come and testify on crime on us soil. Thanks, father. Next up, please. Public speaker good morning. Im an immigrant. I came out of a Detention Center in texas not too long ago and i was detained for six months. 6 months. And while i was there i saw [inaudible] and not only did i defend my case, but i saw many cases that were very similar to mine. Many people like me who are latinos who are detained there. Parents that were arrested unjustly and ended up being transferred to a Detention Center. I was deported last year after i was here for a few years. I was detained 6 months in atlanta. The judge deported me. And i had to come back because i was trying to survive from the violence in my country. I was 6 months in texas. A judge saw my case and actually let me out on parole. And he saw that i had not committed a crime. So i ask you please not to approve collaboration because that also damages undocumented but the whole community is damaged. You know, families are being torn apart and families that just want to work and have a future are frozen in fear because of this. Thank you very much for your attention. Supervisor norman yee is Maria Hernandez here . Public speaker [ spanish speaker ] good morning, my name is maria, thank you for having me here. Im here because i want to be an advocate for my community, for my people. We dont want pep because it breaks down our ability to have a due process which is our constitutional right. We will continue to have to separate families. And it will continue to increment racial profiling and racial hate against latino immigrants. On sunday i was walking in the mission with a can you couple of my friends. A white angelo man confronted us and yelled at us leave this place. This is not your place. Get out of here. Get out of my country. We didnt know him. We were on the way to our church. Im here because of my friends who work in restaurants who could not be here. We are not criminals. Its not fair because of the color of our skin we are being scapegoated. We are people who are working 23 jobs getting up at 5 a. M. 00 a. M. And we are committed to our families in our communities. There are several folks here from city college who are also students. We are not only working hard but we are also going to school. I thank you for approving this process for all. So, i want you to combine efforts and for you who are in a place where you are able to see for everyone in the community. To make sure that we seek for everyone as human beings. And to make sure that you fight for the rights of everyone, for the rights of minorities, for the rights of those who have less. And it is your duty to also see for the rights of those of us who are not able to be here because they dont know their rights or unable to speak for themselves. Thank you. Public speaker [ spanish speaker ] my name is maria, im here from mujeres activea. I know its important for me to be here. So i lived for 10 years with Domestic Violence and in the shadows about what was going on in my life until i almost lost one of my legs because of my abuser tried to run me over with a car. I didnt go to the police because i feared if i did that, then my daughters would be without a mother because of police ice collaboration and i knew that was happening in the community and i didnt want my daughters to end up without a mother. So im here and im alive. This story is not just my story. This is the story of many of my comrades who go through this and because of police ice collaboration they fear speaking up for themselves. We know this is important and i dont want more women to be isolated to not have the resources to call the police and ask for help. You have to do something here. We dont report because we dont want to be part of those statistics where our children are put in foster care systems and they are put in process for adoption simply because their moms were deported. We dont want that to happen to our children. We endure a lot of things. We want to live like any other families. We want to be able to as anyone else to have the right to a good life and we really serve dignity and you have to see for that. We want to change the narrative where we are community members, where we are leaders and people fighting for our community and we want to have that respect. Thank you. Public speaker hi. My name is maria. Im here to oppose any collaboration between Law Enforcement and ice. Because it instills fear in our communicate. A couple years ago my uncle was walking home from work and he got assaulted. He got a bloody head. Can you speak up . We are having trouble hearing. A couple years ago my uncle came home, but he got assaulted while he was walking and his hand was bleeding and he had to go to work with it. So, i asked him did you report . And he said no because he was afraid of giving any information about his status and where he was living because hes as undocumented as me. This means that our community lives in fear from Law Enforcement. So how can we live safely without being protected by Law Enforcement . This is an example to his children. Are they going to hide when they get attacked . What are we going to do as immigrants . I want to say that i oppose this resolution because it instills fear in our community and pushing us back into the shadows. We are afraid to keep silent with whats going on with our lives. I ask you before you make any decisions to think with our community in mind. Thank you. Supervisor norman yee next, cmon up. Public speaker good evening supervisors, im a staff attorney on the law caucus. Im pledging for a no vote on the resolution. It seeks more confusion. I ask that it offer no other guidance. This resolution leads in an unclear position full of confusion, second t resolution sends a mixed message to the Resident Community and upholds sanctuary for all due process while under cutting this fear of ordinances and eliminating Law Enforcement and ice. Underlying this resolution believes that our local Law Enforcement should be collaborating with ice. To the immigrant community that i say rolling back of years of progress where ice is desperate to sell a Deportation Program to any jurisdiction. Finally this proposes no resolution. This tragedy occurred because of an unsecured gun that made its way onto the street. This tragedy did not occur because of someones immigration status. So why is the resolution putting forward and immigration centered solution to a problem that has nothing to do with immigration. We must uphold the rights for all. We must not substitute an immigration system which everyone goes through prior to being process. For these reasons i urge a no vote to supervisors farrells resolution. Thank you. Public speaker [ spanish speaker ] so im here to speak on this issue. I think that i want to start by saying, somebody said a pig is a pig no matter what. And we have to make sure that the laws are fair and that they are equitable and they dont have laws. There are other cases where there is mass murders across pacific that the person who committed the crime is of a specific race and they dont make the rest of the community scapegoats. Why are we talking about this as if it was an immigration issue. So, im here and im proud that i live in a city where rights are being fought for and won and before the legislation for due process for all passed , i was very afraid to report something that happened to me and i had someone who i worked with who said i will call the police. They said good for you. Immigration is going to be called so its up to be if you want to be reported. In our communities. So i want you to be sure that huge door that is now a slice open, does not stay open. Actually disclose close the door to ice. Ice is not accountable. It violates our rights everyday. Families that are trying to get their loved ones out of jail and they pay to make sure they are able the get out on bail and they are losing their bail money. Not only are they getting deported, but losing money in the process. Is there any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Public speaker yeah, im on the list. My name is stacy and with just cause. I want to speak to the issue and the process. The way it brands itself is another way that it violates the peoples rights and torn families apart. We know that and there is always this idea of dividing communities to the ones that are supposed to be serving support and those that are not. That is not the case for our families. I live in a mixed family. My uncle has a lot of things on his record and my uncle is actually responsible for because when he was dealing with alcoholism he had things on his record and not only reformed himself but responsible for opening up 12 aa programs in the San Francisco area. People like my husband is like a one you are deciding if you are going to deport or not. Its about going after those with a record and those who are supporting the community and doing things. Finally the issue on supervisors farrell resolution that its upholding rights and its actually doing the opposite. As many speakers say dont go back on the rights of immigrants. We worked very hard for those and people sacrificed a lot to make things happen and Police Collaboration is only making things worse for our community. Supervisor norman yee thank you very much. Any other Public Comment . Please come on up. Public speaker good morning, we serve the immigrant community and we fought for this in the 80s. Whats as stake is the values for the people of San Francisco. Whats at stake is really about people, about a community, about poor people in this city under attack with housing, under attack by immigration, undertake economically and San Francisco has always done the right thing. San francisco supported samesex marriage when it was unpopular and look where we are today. San francisco was one of the first sanctuary cities in the nation and there are more than 300 cities throughout the United States because it is the right thing to do. We want a city that protects children and keeps children with their families and parents with hardworking people. If all of these people were not working right now, this city would be full, city hall would be full. Thats how many hardworking people are not here to tell their stories. Their stories of abuse by police in our city, the stories of abuse by ice and sheriff mirkarimi did the right thing. That memo is the right thing to uphold. The idea of the gag order is incorrect. Let us not be fooled, let us not succumb to the Public Opinion and that tragedy that happened on pier 14. Lets us uphold the good policies that are proven and protect the community and immigrants. We know you are going to vote yes. Supervisor norman yee thank you very much. Is there any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. First of all i want to thank the public for coming out and expressing their opinions on these two items. I know a lot of you are sacrificing a lot of time to make sure that San Francisco continues to be a sanctuary city that is going to protect our immigrants and even people that are our citizens that look like for some people immigrants. What i would like to do right now is take each item separately in terms of a vote. We are going to start with item no. 1. What i would like for me, thank you, supervisor campos for bringing this up for what triple c has already done and its something that we need to reinforce and certainly i will be supporting it. So supervisor breed . Supervisor london breed thank you. So last year when supervisor avalos introduced the due process ordinance, i was one of the first sponsors on board with that. And at that time there were a number of issues brought forward and we made amendments to that particular ordinance that specifically highlighted some of the challenges that could exist as a result of the legislation which includes our concerns of any Community Whether you are an immigrant or not, we all care about the safety of our communities. We all want to make sure that in any instance that people who commit Violent Crimes are not individuals who are plaguing our communities. And so, i wholeheartedly support this legislation. I wholeheartedly support the intent of the legislation, but i would like to insert, make an amendment to insert language in this particular resolution which is language that is already in existence, language that is already part of what our ordinance is, but just to reiterate this language in this particular resolution to make it clear. Specifically on page 2, line 1619, under the further resolved clause, i would like to add except with regard to individuals who have a prior conviction for a violent felony within a certain period of time are currently being charged with a violent felony and may pose a Public Safety risk as detailed in section 1. 3 replacing which because encounters San Francisco values and due process in the city and county of refuge ordinances thats what i ask to change my colleagues and ask for this change in order to make this clear and make the legislation better. Supervisor david campos first let me say that im disappointed to hear about this. Actually madam president you gave me this language now. What she is doing is to add language that is essentially meaningless because this requirement is already embedded in the law. So, why would someone add language that already requires action when there is a violent felony. Why would someone do that . Whether you intended or not, this comes across as playing politics with this issue. There is simply no reason, president breed, to add this language. And that of all the things you would highlight about due process and sanctuary that you would play into the hands that when we talked about sanctuary somehow we are talking about condoning violent activity. Thats very sad. So, i encourage and plead with my colleagues, do not, please, do not accept this language. Its one thing for donald trump and the right wing to do that at the national states, but for this to be done in San Francisco, its sad. In this respect to this community which has tried to meet with people. You know, supervisor farrell, i respect where hes coming from. He has a perspective in this and he has met with the community and met with us. Thank you, supervisor farrell. But to bring this last minute without having the decency so sit down with people and explain what you are doing is sad and disrespectful. Our Community Deserves Better especially from the president of the board of supervisors. Supervisor norman yee supervisor breed. Supervisor london breed supervisor campos passing me in the hall and telling me you want to meet with me about this legislation, doesnt exactly supervisor norman yee please no disturbance from the audience. We want to give the same respect to people on this panel. Supervisor london breed doesnt equate to genuine outreach to talk to me about this situation. I understand there are politics, i dont understand what kind of politics im playing to. I do what i exactly did previously in the legislation which is a clause that we know already exist. I dont understand why this would make the legislation significantly different if this already exist. Thats what im missing here. Im just adding language that reiterates a point that i have made time and time again that im concerned about period. When supporting the legislation before us. So, i understand that you are upset and i talked to you about this i know within a short time period, but this is what will make me feel comfortable supporting the legislation. If this language is not inserted into this particular resolution, then i wont feel comfortable supporting the legislation. So im offering this as a friendly amendment in order to move this legislation forward with my support. Supervisor norman yee supervisor avalos . Supervisor john avalos thank you. As i said earlier, really the problem with this resolution actually which i do support doesnt have a problem is that it doesnt really enact city policies. Its a resolution, a statement of what we want to see rather than change to conform the local policy to protect immigrants with the change the federal government made with pep. I also am really concerned about how politics have played out in this discussion here. In my earlier statement there has been an effort to say that Lopez Sanchez was a violent fell felon. But it actually distracts us from what is really happening is that our local law protections are not able to beat the chains that are happening at the federal government. I dont think we go far enough to actually really making global law actually effective and we dont give ourselves cover by using the same theme that the media is using especially the chronicle, violent felons, an issue with violent felons. We dont have to change anything. You either want cooperation support with pep. The legislation for all was very clear that we want to separate Law Enforcement from federation enforcement and to stop violence for what is going to provide a crystal ball in the future for nothing at all is going to take us backwards. Supervisor david campos i want to say what supervisor avalos. Supervisor breed if you want to support pep then you should vote against my resolution. If you believe that we should not, then you should support it. But to inject the idea of a violent felony into this discussion when it has nothing to do with pep and embedded in our due process, i think it is making a political statement. It is making a political statement and it has consequences and the other thing that people are trying to paint this in the guise of Public Safety without due facts. This person had a number of felonies but none of them were violent felonies. If you have any information to the contrary, i would like to hear it. But my point here is that im glad that we are having this discussion, because when i talked to community folks, i think many people assumed it would be a no brainer to say no pep in San Francisco, but it goes to show you how as far as we have come we havent really come that far. Because this will be a fight at the board of supervisors it seems when the president of the board is trying to do this. And what i would say is this i would rather have the board come out and say we are going to engage in pep, instead of making statements that are ultimately contradictory. So it is not a friendly amendment. Friendly is not describing what you are trying to do. Whether you support it or dont support it. It really is that simple. Supervisor norman yee last word on this before you vote on the amendment. Supervisor london breed supervisor campos i just need some clarity in terms of if it already exist as you said in your statement, whats the problem with including it in this resolution . If this is already a requirement . It is a political statement that you feel the need in saying no involvement in pep that you are going to talk about violent felonies. Its something that plays right into the hands of the dialogue and discourse of the hatred that is out there. Why do you have to address something that is already covered . Why do we have to parent the language of the people who are trying to scapegoat a community when our law already addresses the very point that you were raising . Why do we have to do that . Supervisor norman yee would you like to make a motion on your amendment. Supervisor london breed i would like to make a motion to add this language to the resolution. Supervisor norman yee supervisor farrell . Supervisor mark farrell i understand the dialogue here and understand the feelings around here. And i appreciate if there is disagreement about language. There is obviously disagreement with some of the folks that i have met with and supervisor campos and i on item no. 2. Perhaps its not the ultimate way to do things, but there comes a time, all the time at the board of supervisors in committees where people because they continue to have more discussions with people or have different ideas that we see language at the last minute. It happens routinely within the context of the board of supervisors. It doesnt take away the fact that people disagree with the language by itself but i dont think calling that out is a valid point. Really to say, what i heard, with all due respect, the only people that have mentioned the word politics here are the people that are opposing this language or talked against my resolution. We can disagree on it. This looks like a policy and a discussion has been framed and discussed around policy. I dont think its appropriate. If you want to recharacterize this policy, thats fine and i dont disagree with that. This is a policy if it takes one individual to get comfortable with language or resolution or ordinance, thats something that we entertain routinely at the board of supervisors. So i dont believe that to be the case here. And i dont think its appropriate to characterize it that way. So that being said, i will second this amendment. Im sure well have a further discussion with it at the board of supervisors. But i want to make sure we are talking about our procedures in [ chanting ] supervisor norman yee supervisor avalos . Supervisor john avalos if we are going to take the politics out of it i think we should take out no. 2 and take out the language throughout the resolution about the gag order. Supervisor norman yee supervisor we are continuing with item no. 1 first. Its related to both items. Its at politics at play with both resolutions. Supervisor norman yee supervisor avalos, can i just finish item no. 1 first. Let me make my statements about politics then which are about item no. 1. Again, i will reiterate, we had a discussion about trying to defend our sanctuary city policy and our due process for all ordinance in the face of withering attacks at all levels of government and media from fox news at the National Level that trickles down into our own Television Sets to San Francisco chronicle which is editorialized and column and what is happening and explode this into a much more explosive issue that it truly has been and its actually removing us from being good about defending policies as tried to protect immigrants in San Francisco. I dont think the language that supervisor breed is offering is necessarily detracting but its all fit into that political scheme out there about trying to say that there is an issue about violent felons that should be deported and anyone should cringe that we are trying to protect people from the ordinance and due process for all ordinance. So i, given that there has been perrotization of what we are trying to to do with our local laws to inject the policies on what is a resolution about whether we should or shouldnt participate in the pep program smacks that same trend that we have been facing and doesnt help this direction. If it helps you move forward the resolution its fine, but when you want to inject those words, it fits in part how immigrants in San Francisco have been scapegoated to these past few months and have been at a great detriment to what we are able to fulfill our goals to protect immigrants and its going to play at the National Level as well. If this is what it takes to stand to the local and National Spot lights, so be it. Supervisor norman yee supervisor campos, i want to continue the vote. Supervisor david campos i want to ask the committee on item one. Supervisor norman yee then well go back to vote on item 1 right after the amendments. Let me finish with the order of the amendments first, okay . Supervisor david campos its an important point related to that though. I would like to ask that you duplicate the file and send two versions of this resolution forward, one with the amendment and one without the amendment. I would ask at least to have a decency to give us the opportunity to vote on an unamended resolution. Supervisor norman yee supervisor breed . Supervisor london breed what i will do is withdraw my amendment and make my amendment at the full board to give time in order to talk to members of the community to come to some level of a consensus. I do appreciate your comments, supervisor avalos, specifically your comments related to how this particular issue continuously tries to attach a particular stigma to individuals of the immigrant community and so thats definitely not my intent here, but i do want to come up with a consensus of language to insert in this resolution and i think, i would be open to having that discussion and giving ourselves time in order to work this out at the board of supervisors, at the board level and not duplicate the file. So with that i will withdraw my motion to include this, but i want to be clear that im not necessarily saying that im not going to work on moving forward to include this in the resolution in the future. Supervisor norman yee thank you very much for your withdrawing this amendment. For me, i would have voted against it for personally felt the emphasis of the message was the wrong message. I wanted to be related to i think if you are going to present this at the full board it will have a discussion around that and give us more time to think about it. But right now i would have voted against it. Thank you again for withdrawing the amendment today. I would like to send this out to the full board without a recommendation from the committee. Avalos Supervisor John Avalos i would like to have more discussion before the Board Meeting as to add or not add language. As ask that we also suggest how we update our local ordinance for due process for all to how to meet new conditions under pep. That is something that needs to be explored because right now due process for all is about detentions. Its silent on notification and there is also some wiggle room to be clear on what notification is. There could be contention around notification. There is something we have to work on. Its a challenge to do that with existing politics, not just politics in this board but politics that we are all in some kind of dome but politics that we are dealing with locally and nationally, i think its difficult to do that but we have to do that in order to update local policy with federal immigration policy. Supervisor norman yee supervisor campos . Supervisor david campos thank you, i do appreciate the amendment has been withdrawn at this time. But i think at the core, the problem with this language or any language along those lines is what it does to this resolution. This is not by the way, an ordinance. This is not something that specifically changes existing policy. At some point we are going to have to work on an ordinance. This is a statement. This is a statement about pep. A program that is trying to entangle our local Law Enforcement with immigration enforcement. So, when in that statement you include language that talks about violent felonies, you are doing precisely what this statement is supposed to be criticizing which is that we dont want this Community Associated with criminality because the reality is that most of us who have been undocumented except for the fact that we are undocumented, we are law abiding citizens who try to be productive members of this society. Thats whats so dangerous about this language that it mixes that language of criminality with this statement. And that defeats the point of what we are trying to do. Supervisor norman yee okay, there has been a motion to send this out of committee with no recommends. I will second. I will speak to that i will not be voting for that and request that it be sent out with positive recommendation that its something that much of our city supports including the triple c. This is a statement of reinforcing what we have on the books. I dont know why it wouldnt be a positive recommendation. If thats the motion, i will be voting against it. Roll call, please. City clerk on the motion to forward the resolution without recommendation. Supervisor farrell, aye, supervisor breed, aye, chair yee, no, we have two ayes and one no with supervisor yee dissenting. Supervisor norman yee thank you very much. Well move on to item no. 2 in terms of a motion. However the discussion that people want, i would like to send this with a motion to recommendation to the full board. Second. Supervisor norman yee im looking at the language and see what your feelings are around this. In trying to keep the intent that you have but two places i thought it would be helpful to me to get behind this a little bit more is just the, to really take the word gag order i will just give the title of the memo. Just a title and dont call it gag order thats what it is to amend it. So the language for that, i think, if you can use this where it says immigration and customs for contact and communication to replace gag order and the second place, because this is a Department Head that is doing creating policies and one of the things that i dont feel comfortable is telling Department Heads how to form policies. Rather than saying rescind can we say review to strengthen the policy . If i may, mr. Chairman, the first item, i think its semantics, we can just agree on that, im more than happy to change the title. On the second one, i think the core of the resolution itself and mind you also in response to a request from the Sheriffs Department on direction. I think its a different direction to say review than to say rescind. I want to be as flexible as possible but the second one changes it and im not comfortable with that. What is at concern here about some of the comments made by public. I would like to see something before rescinding it to have something in place. Maybe im using the wrong word so if you are revealing it and changing it so that they will have no policy in place. I appreciate those comments, mr. Chairman. I think a few things about perhaps some of the comments from the sheriff who came earlier to speak on this. First of all, for the sheriff to refer to my resolution and my policy recommendation in response to his request as reckless and irresponsible, to me is the height of unfounded righteousness and something that i found shocking to hear. And i think a future policy discussion at the board of supervisors is something that supervisor avalos alluded to around due process for all in regards to pep, or weaving in departmental policies. I have no problem with reviewing that discussion. All points clear, this is a none binding resolution. Because the sheriff wouldnt be required to rescind it when the board would consider passing it. That is his discretion. But his resolution was in his response or asked for his direction. From my perspective, if we wanted to discuss further specific policies im happy and i dont think we should at this point for entertainment at the board of supervisors from my perspectives for having discretion within our Law Enforcement personnel because of all the other unforeseen circumstances i think is critical to the city. So i welcome that discussion that at the board to have that discussion with the Sheriffs Department Going Forward but as the title as he put it forward, that is he asked for direction and this is in response to that and ask him to rescind it, i imagine the entire thing is going to be discussed in the context and the sheriff will not do that immediately very clear from the statements but he asked for direction. I just want to be clear. If there is additional language and make it more palatable but we need to be clear on the resolution itself. Supervisor norman yee supervisor avalos . Supervisor john avalos thank you. This is really a tough discussion and i really dont like to get in this political realm. We can just talk about the real policy. I dont believe when the sheriff requested direction that he was asking for rescinding his memo. I believe he was asking for direction under what conditions he might have communication or Department Might have communication with ice. It was a shock that the actual direction is no communication or actually you should have communication. So, we get to the point where if we are saying a sheriff should have communication, we are basically saying that we are going to decrease or take away the separation we wanted to create between Law Enforcement and ice. So, we have a resolution, item no. 2, that essentially has language that upholds our sanctuary City Ordinance and due process for all ordinances but includes an inversion of our sanctuary city policies by saying the sheriff should communicate with ice. I dont believe that is a very straight forward way to put forward what we should be doing as a city is is you know, you have the right to free speech, but please dont try it, or that is not a way to move forward, its to completely a political position. What i would like to see, to propose when this comes before the full board that we have a sanctuary city policy for all ordinances and i like the language that our supervisor chair yee has put forward to review the policy and change the language and take out the word gag for a use of words to paint a certain picture. If you read the memo there is no whatsoever, that there should be communication with ice and this Going Forward from which this memo originated. Lets be very clear. If we have this discussion at the board of supervisors, its going to be ugly and political. Its going to tease out all the different ways that this tragic incident has been politicized that immigrants have been escape goaded in escape go to dsh scapegoats in the process and ens everything San Francisco has been trying to do in San Francisco. Supervisor david campos one issue i have with this resolution is it gives the implication or suggestion that somehow whatever you think of the memo that sheriff mirkarimi issued that is a violation of the law. I want to know directly from our City Attorney whether or not the memo that was issued by sheriff mirkarimi goes against local law. Deputy City Attorney john gibner. The sanctuary ordinance prohibits Law Enforcement from contacting and communicating and reporting to ice in certain circumstances and allows the sheriff and Police Discretion to report and communicate another circumstance when someone is in custody with a prior felony. The sheriffs memo to his staff basically says in those circumstances where sanctuary gives this department discretion to decide whether to communicate with ice, we are not, you cannot communicate with ice. So the memo doesnt violate sanctuary whether its appropriate policy or consistent with the spirit of sanctuary of course is a decision for you. So thats the point that i want to make because i think this resolution gives the wrong impression. But the more important point is stepping back with these two ordinances, i mean, these two resolutions as supervisor farrell said. These are nonbinding resolutions. Both of them do not have the affect that an ordinance would have where its actually binding law. These are statements and whats disturbing about whats happening in committee today is that on the issue of pep, this committee is noncommittal on that. We are going to figure out when it goes to the board of supervisors. But when it comes to the guidance between the tanglement between sheriffs and ice, it looks like its ready to proceed to take that away without any direction. I will tell you that the biggest fear and concern that i have is that we have actually seen by the way, what happens in San Francisco when there is no direction. I will give you the example, the first major piece of legislation that i worked on which was to protect the Due Process Rights of undocumented children in San Francisco. Mayor newsom did the then existing policy that did not provide any guidance to the juvenile probation department, what happened as a result was that we had a situation where depending on where the juvenile probation officer was and how they felt about this issue, they did Different Things and you actually had officers who went beyond what i think even mayor newsom expected and so without giving actual guidance it leaves it up to the individual Deputy Sheriff and that creates a lot of problems that can actually cut either way because they might lead to reporting when its not appropriate and maybe even where there is something specific that requires action where that action is not taken. Thats the danger here and so, i think a better approach would be to develop a strategy for us to figure out what guidance you would be given. I think that makes sense. The thing about the pep resolution is that it is done in the spirit of at least giving some guidance which is no pep. But to move forward without giving no pep is a very very sad statement on the state of affairs of where things are in San Francisco. I guess supervisor avalos and i are the ones that used the word politics, but the fact that you have not uttered the words doesnt mean you are not doing it. I think we are trying to be honest about what we think is happening. Its a very sad day today. So. I would like to amend the language. Again, the first part i already talked about to add on line 10 of page 2, right before rescind i would add the language create a new policy to better follow the sanctuary city and due process for all policies and its the same. So basically, its getting back to the point which is important to me that we dont leave us while any policies in terms of how to react and before you rescind anything, lets put something together. So thats my suggested amendment. Again, the language that you articulated to be clear on that you can read it on the record to be clear. The motion will be, im happy to make the motion. First of all on the title of the resolution, the third line 5 on the first page instead of gag order we will delete gag order insert memorandum of march 13, 2015, regarding immigration and Custom Enforcement procedure and contact communication. That is page 1, line 5 and line. 1. The second part of the motion will be to add in line 10, before the word rescind create a new policy to better follow San Francisco sanctuary and policy and continued to march 13, 2015. Supervisor norman yee thats my amendment. Supervisor mark farrell i will make the motion to amend. With no objection, the motion passes for amendment. I would like to make a recommendation to the full board. Okay. No objection, motion passes. Thank you very much. Its been a long hearing so far. We have three more items and this suggestion is to take a small break at this point for 20 minutes and readjourn the meeting. So could i have a motion to go into recess . Just recess. Okay. You are the chairman. Please stand by. Supervisor norman yee okay. We are going to continue our meeting. Thank you for your patience during recess. The first session went a lot longer than we anticipated. Well see how fast we can go through the next three items. Im going to call these items out of order. Im going to call no. 8 first which is a request from supervisor farrell and because im doing that, the other two items are going to have to wait. I would like our speakers to present this as quickly as possible. Item no. 8. City clerk item no. 8. [administrative code updating job classifications and bargaining units] sponsor mayor ordinance amending the administrative code to reflect changes in job classifications and bargaining units. 1234 supervisor norman yee Martin Graham . Yes. Martin graham dhr a process we use to clean of classification names and add new classification to the ordinance. Okay. Any comments . Questions . Seeing none, is there any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Can i have a motion. The motion should be that well move to full board as a positive recommendation to Committee Report . No objection, item passes. Madam clerk, item no. 3, 4, 5. City clerk item 3 and 4 i will call together. Clerk [hearing civil grand jury cleanpowersf at long last] hearing on the recently published 20142015 civil grand jury report, entitled cleanpowersf at long last. clerk of the board , item no. 4. [board response civil grand jury cleanpowersf at long last] resolution responding to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations contained in the 20142015 civil grand jury report, entitled cleanpower at long last; and urging the mayor to cause the implementation of accepted findings and recommendations through his her Department Heads and through the development of the annual budget. clerk sf 41234 item no. 5. [reaffirming approval of the cleanpowersf Implementation Plan] sponsors mayor; breed and mar resolution reaffirming approval of the cleanpowersf updated 2015 Implementation Plan and statement of intent for a Community Choice Aggregation Program, including modifications consistent with the sf 51234 supervisor norman yee okay, i mentioned i would love it if the speakers can keep this as short as possible. Philippe reed. Good afternoon, im phillip read of the 2014 civil grand jury for San Francisco. Im here to discuss both reports that you are considering today. Its not unreasonable to add why do with need this in San Francisco which has its own audit department. What can the jury had to the conversation. The two reports that you are going to be considering today will answer that quite well. The clean powersf isnt functioning yet. Its been delayed and there is nothing for the city to audit. The jury can look at the process, analyze and dispute and suggest ways to revolve resolve it and get the program launched. Its called a metaanalysis, a study of study on individual audits and trying to discern an outline on the big picture with which to make a policy choice which is recommended in the report. In each of these instances the jury is able to take a wider view because thats primarily what we do. Thats why we are here. So, in that spirit, let me first introduce her who chaired the committee of jurors that researched cleanpowersf and wrote the report. Herb will come up and may i say his presentation on that report. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, supervisors, my name is herb and i want to thank the committee for putting this report together. The writers and turners and phillip reed. The Committee Members who worked with us were dan chester and cohen. Our work cleanpowersf at long last is set to do Something Different from many grand jury. Instead of malfeasance, we stead did a history why did it take so long for Renewable Power sf to start. We had to go back to school. In that case it was power school. Allow me to cover a few years. The short view of that history is delay, delay again and more delay. Since 2003, entities have struggled to implement a board policy to bring Affordable Renewable Energy to all of san franciscans. On this journey various milestones occurred. In june 2007, november 2009, august 2010 and finally late 2012, various proposals were put forward. Along the way, there were draft Implementation Plans, debates, some of which were very rancorous and contract negotiations and probably several hundred emails, phone calls, phone conversations and meetings. It came to a spirited deadend because so many advocates and so many helpful people right here in this room never lost hope. Hope was the quality that helped find a new path. So it led us to a program that hopefully brings us to the dawn of a citywide Affordable Renewable Energy program for all of San Francisco citizens. One that is supported by a diverse array of stakeholders and im very proud that we were able to talk with so many in that community. In early 2016, we hoped to see the roll out of this. This Little Program that could. A methodology that we had five members of the committee who met regularly and small and large groups over the course of the year. As sources for our investigation we used material from the following. The San Francisco public library, online compilation of local ordinances provided by the board of supervisors, reports and other materials provided in hard copy and online from the San Francisco Public Utilities commission, the San Francisco department of the environment, San Franciscos office of economic analysis, San Franciscos lack of lafco, clean power and workers 45 and pacific and gas and elect electric companies and employees and the committee met with employees of several meetings including sf puc and lafco. Additionally we reviewed the documents and statistics by those entities and our interview ees. Back to power school. What we learned from our several sources and resources mentioned earlier was that implementation was stymied due to conflicting vexing questions. Question, one, what is green power and where does it come from. Question 2, can it be made affordable and can it be affordable at all and 3, where are the jobs that will go with cleanpowersf. In its current consideration is ready and able to succeed. Challenges remain and we wouldnt be doing our job if we didnt point them out. Cleanpowersf is presently designed as a small scale program, one that does not rely on unbundled recs that do not count and grease. It would be Marin Clean Energy and a tenth of the size of sonoma clean power. This must be provided to grow, however it must keep up with the pace with the city ambition and goals as legally established. A proven Cost Effective and environmentally sound and prudent measure implemented by clean energy and sonoma clean power by unbundled recs. Marin do not rely on unbundled recs. Sonoma and marin both find them them brace of unbundled recs. In fact in july 2015 noted the following. It is the citys policy that the use of unbundled recs for customers should be deemed feasible by the sf puc consistent with the goals of the program. This rational is very close. Close enough for government work if you will, to our own findings and recommendations. If we follow the examples of both Marin Clean Energy and sonoma clean power, adapting and modifying their principals to create a local managed program for all san franciscans, we believe cleanpowersf prospect for success as affordable and honest and Transparent Program are excellent. Our Committee Also found that job creation while an allude able goal a fact should only small impact on local employment. But there will be no net job for cleanpowersf because they are growing. However since most are outside of San Francisco, not all but most of them, the Jobs Associated with them will be outside of the city as well. Still, cleanpowersf can still create some local jobs especially for installing and maintaining Solar Energy Products and the Energy Efficient programs in such areas as auditing and accounting and electrical contracting. Im almost finished. We also found the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Commission is poised to run this program in an effective and responsible manner. We have had many years with this power for the city and they have been saluted for their efforts. We have no doubt that they will bring to this office to bear this city program. These are the findings. Cleanpowersf must grow quickly to meet the timeline for reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions and become financially viable. No. 2, the program should be able to use unbundled recs to meet the citys needs and create jobs without financial viability and expansion. Go solar sf allows cleanpowersf to provide ample services to provide city needs. Therefore we encourage all Public Officials including the mayor to help cleanpowersf succeed. My final plead to you, supervisors, is just five words, we can delay no longer. Thank you very much for your help and support and your undying efforts to help this program succeed. Thank you very much. Thank you for your report. At this point, i would like to call up barbara hale or roger kim. Good afternoon, roger kim and the Mayors Office and sf puc submitted a joint to the response to the grand jury report and barbara and i will briefly summarize our response and take any questions. First i want to thank the grand jury for its time and report. In january of this year, mayor lee and breed called on sf puc to draw up a version of cleanpowersf and the program did not include a contract with shell energy that was greener and cost competitive with pg es basic product and to also include a plan to create jobs. Since then we believe that sf puc has designed a program to meet those objectives and the board and the mayor Work Together on legislation to expedite the development of the program. Although you know, there is a recent announcement of a delay, its disappointing. I believe that sf puc has done a tremendous job of getting and designing this new version of the program. Just to briefly summarize our disagreements with the grand jury boils down to a few issues, the use of unbundled recs and puc uses unbundled recs. We dont think its necessary nor appropriate to use unbundled recs in this program. Both of the pucs products green and soup green are now designed to proceed dur highest quality bundled products and not unbundled recs for its products in this manner. We think that San Francisco consumers expect that when we are saying they are purchasing 50 or 100 of Renewable Energy that they are actually purchasing Renewable Power and not pay for certificates. They believe they are displacing nonRenewable Power and we want to encourage the development of new renewable sources in the way that unbundled recs would not require. The policy for the unlimited use of unbundled recs and the legislation making its way that in the past prohibit the use of unbundled with Greenhouse Gas emissions. And the other issue around jobs. The mayor believes strongly that jobs is an expectation, the creation of jobs is an expectation of the program and not just a desirable outcome. We believe that jobs will be created through building Renewable Energy products and projects. And also through Energy Efficiency projects here in San Francisco and we want the program to maximize the creation of those jobs for San Francisco. The internet report commissioned by lafco lay down the foundation for Jobs Creation and sf puc is going to further develop a jobs plan after they set the rates and evaluate the bids for sourcing that power. Bottom line, todays version of cleanpowersf is far superior to other programs in front of the sf puc commission back in august 2013 when it deciding not to set the rates. This is going to be affordable, affecting low income ratepayers, its great for consumers and greener and uses bundled power and transparent about that. It doesnt rely upon an oil company to provide services and will create jobs. We believe we have answered the concerns that the civil grand jury has laid out and i will turn it to barbara hale to answer questions. On behalf of the puc we wish to thank the civil grand jury for the report an concur with the statements and we are in concurrence and submitted the letter jointly. Im happy to answer any questions you may have and to present item 5 when you are ready for that. Supervisor london breed ms. Hale, i wanted to ask a question about the civil grand jurys explanation of unbundled versus bundled recs and as to how basic distribution doesnt equal. Can you give me your assessment of that because that was of concern to me based on what we are trying do with our clean power program. Of course we dont want to delay and i know its very complicated, but thats the explanation that i read in a civil grand jury report is not how i understand bundled and unbundled means as it relates to clean power and the source of clean power and the source of how its distributed because we are talking about this power when its actually distributed whether its bundled or unbundled is advertised as green. I can take a moment to describe for folks who have not been following this closely. The market has evolved now to when generation occurs, two products can be reproduced. Generation from a california renewable resources, the kilowatt hours, the energy that flows through the grid and the certificates that account for that product. Those two products can be traded in the market separately. When we talk about bundled renewable credits we are talking about a purchase of electricity from a generator where the products both the electricity and the renewable attributes are purchased together. The energy is delivered and the Renewable Energy credits are retired. When we are talking about unbundled Energy Credits, they are produced and the purchase of those two products does not occur simultaneously. Those two products occur separately. The retirement of the Renewable Energy credits occurs and is accounted for. Under the state of california renewable standards, both of those products do qualify as green. The concept of unbundled and bundled, is an accommodation if you will for the fact that Renewable Energy to energy generated from the sun, the wind, from hydro, that energy is generated when the resource is ready. Not necessarily when the purchaser is ready. So what california renewable portfolio standards allow is for the investment. The investor in the renewable resource, the generator to compensate for both products anytime they are used. We know electricity can be used in the middle of the night. Generation doesnt occur in the middle of the night. So the ability to apply the Renewable Energy credits when consumption is happening, helps the compliance with the renewable portfolio standards on the retail provider side and it makes sure that the Generation Market recognizes and gives incentives to the development of renewable resources. So its a Public Policy thats intended to stimulate the development of renewables. Now, just the fact that i have had to explain what these products are is part of the reason why our Program Design at the puc is why we are embarking on the program with only bundled Renewable Energy credits. While folks can develop a sophistication and understanding of this product is cleaner and can help build in the marketplace when our new customers know that the product that we are providing is truly a renewable product thats high quality, a bundled product because we are making a commitment in the bundled community and a commitment with the producer of that electricity that recognizes the value of both of those commodities, electricity and renewable aspects at the same time. Based on the civil grand jury report do you think it accurately describes this . I think it does generally accurately. I think iv gives a clear description. There are about what an unbundled attribute is. I believe the civil grand jury, might overemphasized where the energy is created. Renewable Energy Credits can be created everywhere the generation occurs. So unbundled renewable credits happen here in San Francisco, top solar and in california and outside of the state. I think the civil grand jury report led the impression that they overemphasized the outside of california nature. They can happen anywhere. Thank you. Supervisor norman yee thank you very much. Did you want me to present item 5. I heard the secretary call them altogether. Im not sure if you want know present it now. Im happy to do it at your pleasure. We called items 3, 4, 5, we can have her present. Supervisor norman yee why dont you do the presentation since you are up here. Sounds great. What we brought before you is your approval for the Community Choice Aggregation Program for Implementation Plan for the california puc. California law requires any Community Choice aggregation for adopting an Implementation Program for any details in certain additional information. We have brought to the board a number of times Implementation Plans what you have before you today is a revision to that Implementation Plan that updates the Program Design to our new Program Design. So this Implementation Plan states that cleanpowersf, the program will lead with affordability, that will offer two products at launch, a default product between 33 50 renewable that were branded the green Product Offering and an optional product that will provide 100 renewable supply to its customers that were branding our super green product. That will be priced competentively through pg e implementing green Product Offering. The basic product, our green product will be price affordable and competitive with pg es basic product that you receive today if you are a pg e customer. The Commission Adopted not to raise Rate Methodology for peoples bills that are