Allegiance . I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Madam plez president may i call roll . Parenthesisdants lofts, here. Vice prez dns therman, here. Commissioner marshal, here. Commissioner dejesus, here. Commissioner wang, here. Commissioner mu larta. Madam president you have a quarm. Also with us this evening is chief of police, gregory suhr and joyce hicks andgeny kim welcome to the october 21 Police Commission meeting. I want to thank the Salvation Army crock sents frr allowing us to be in this beautiful space. And given all of us have day jobs and this meeting starts at 6 a shout out to the tenderloin station folks and [inaudible] catering. For those catching at home you dont get to avail yourself for the sandwiches but those who just got here it is wonderful. [inaudible] i also have to say this is the Second Community meeting we had the tenderloin in the last few months but these are the meeting specifically dedicated to 1 subject so want to let you know we were here on redistricting and now on Body Worn Camera. Well come back to have a tenderloin focus meeting purely. We have been here but it is always on specific subjects so anxious to come and hear about the issues in theteneder loin but grateful you are hosting us. Since this is a Community Meeting my colleagues will share a little about their background and who they are before we get starte. Ill start with commissioner mazzucco thank you very much. Ime rar partner in a law firm in San Francisco called [inaudible] prior to that i spent 19 years as a state and federal prosecutor and native san franciscan and been on the commission all most 8 year jz my wife and i have raised our 2 children in this great city so look forward what you have to say my name is victor wong, for those here from the tl i am known as mr. Ivy league. I am the Deputy Director of legal out reach, we are the largest provider of the Legal Service in immigration, Domestic Violence and human traffics. I also worked as a da in San Francisco and as a public defender in la pet prudejesus and also a attorney and work with the Plaintiffs Firm now and used to be a public defender in San Francisco and also a native. I am always glad to be in the can you hear . Native san franciscan and on the commission about 7 year jz always glad to come to the tenderloin and having din rb so thank you for coming and hearing your ideas regarding the Body Worn Cameras my name is julius turman. I wish i could say im not a lawyer, but i am. I am a partner at the law firm of read smith and practice labor and employment. Thank you for having us here. Commissioner marshal you met all the lawyer jz can meet the 2 that are not. [inaudible] former employee of San Francisco unified school district. Sonia melara and the executive drether director [inaudible] at Saint Francis haupt and on the faculty of San FranciscoState University and live in the tair vel. Suzy lofts and work at the California Attorney generals office. I used to a prosecutor in San Francisco and worked at bay view helping to speak to children as [inaudible] i am a native san franciscan and my husband and i are raising our 3 kids in the outer sunset. So, today just wanted to orient everyone to how we got here. Many knowthank you everyone who is taking time to share your opinion. This is what this is about. The process started some months ago where the commission asked the defarmt to convene a working group that had a bunch of stake holders to look at the policy paper squz various policy squz make recommendations about what Body Worn Camera policy we will adault. That work happened over summer and met 6 times and presented to us september. We had a Community Meeting in the Western Addition in september and this is our second and final meeting. Now we are hear to listen, the policy is on the website. You will hear a presentation so if you are not expert you dont have to be because the demarmt will present on the evolution of the policy and what some of the igues are and will hear from the folks on the working group where there wasnt agreement so you will hear both sides and we continue to hear from that. For those here sharing your opinions we will not deliberate or act on the policy. We are plang to dliperate and talk about it on the november 4 meeting and hopefully have a final action squejed for the meeting in december at which point the policy goes fl to the labor and negotiation process. Just by way of orientation that is where we are. Iologist shared one update with my colleagues which is ab 69 was passed and signed by the governor which does implicate guidelines for body worn cam raw policies. The City Attorney will advice us and work with the department to know how that implicates the policy we have and it is our charge to comply with state law. Commissioners you have that in the packet and with with that i like to invite [inaudible] from the tenderloin. Thank you captain hello thank you for coming. [inaudible] i like to welcome [inaudible] Police Commission. President loftus, commissions, chief suhr. Director hicks of the office of citizen complaints, supervisor kim. I like to thank the Salvation Army for allowing us to the use the facility and [inaudible] for providing the food and copy and water. I will not make a presentation regarding body cameras but january 20 of next year well have the presentation again and promise i get to talk again a lot. At this time i would like to turn it over to commander mozeier for his presentation. Thank you. Thank you captain. President s loftus, commissioners, supervisor kim, chief surh, director hicks and members of the public. Im commander mozeier and was one of the 3 cochairs of the body Camera Working Group that worked to give the draft policy that we have here tonight that we will discuss. What i will do here is just give a overview of the process, how the group was formed, what we did in terms of the methodology in developing the draft policy and walk you through the meetings and some of the issues we discussed throughout the meetings and some of the areas where we didnt have consensus, so hopefully youll get a idea how the process played out. Next slide, please. On april 30, 2015 mayor lee, chief suhr and president loftus announced additional funds over the next 2 budget psycholts are set aside for Body Worn Cameras for the deapartment. On may 13 president loftus directed the department to establish a working group for the purchase of developing a bodty worn cam raw policy. President loftus also gave the department and working group the task of presenting a policy for consideration by the commission within 90 days. It was a very aggressive timeline and we knew we had a lot of work. Present loftus additionally directed the group to vet any potential or potentially consenshs issues and provide alternative viewpoinlts where they might exist. We realize going through a complex policy there will be areas where the group may not come to consensus and in those cases, we were directed to present both sides to the commission for the consideration. Next slide, please. On may 13, the working group was formed and it included representatives from the Police Department, the office of citizens complaints, the Public Defenders Office, the sf Bar Association, aclu rks human right commission recollect department of human resources, a community representative, the s F Police Officers association, the officers for justice, sf pride alliance, the National Latino peace officers association, the asian peace officer slgz and Womens Police officer association. I like to point out severeral members of the working group are here tonight. They have been at this meeting and several were at the first Public Meeting of the body camera in the northern and they were also at the Police Commission meeting as well. I ask any member nofz working group that participated if you can stand up real quick so the group can see you. [applause] again, that thank you for coming and thank you for the hard work and time you put in on the process to get us where we are today. Next slide, please. On june 2 the group met for the first meeting. We put out several documents to the group prior to meeting for consideration so we would have a background on some of the model policies and issues out there prior to coming to the table. Some of the policies we put out were Oakland Police department, la policy, san diego pd policy, the aclu white paper on Body Worn Camera jz puff doj model policy. We also came to the table with basically a draft document that included what we felt were some the main components of a Body Worn Camera policy to start discussion among the group. Our first meeting we talked about the purpose and policy and you go through the body worn cam raw policy which is posted on line, it is on the Police Commissions website and the link from the Police Department website. You see the sections that i am referring to. We talked about the purpose of the Body Worn Camera was or should be. We went into the policy which talked about the use of equipment that basically it was going to be depermanent issued and approved Body Worn Camera and who would administer the training and the program administer in the department who is the administer for the Body Worn Camera program and what that entails such as tracking and training and inven tory of the cameras and [inaudible] in addition in the first meeting we scheduled future meetings to comply with president loft ust timeline of 90 days. At that time we scheduled our meetings for every other tuesday for 2 hours. It important to note these were allope toon the public. All of the notes, minutes and draft policies from each step of the way in each meeting we had were all posted on the commissions website and available for the public to see at each step of the way. Next slide, please. On june 16 the Body Worn Camera working group met for a second time. We adopted the minutes from the previous meeting and talked about section 3 of the policy, which covers the set up and maintenance. Basically talks about when a officer or member was starting his or her shift what their responsibilities would be, what they would do if they found a damaged to a camera, so on and so forth. Then we talked about ken consent, the idea of cunl sent from a citizen to film. We talked about authorized use, when officers shall record and turn them on can be found on page 2 of the Body Worn Camera policy. Then we talked about when officers shouldnt record as well in that meeting and that is found on page 2 and 3 of the Body Worn Camera policy. Next slide, please. Also on that same meeting we discussed the idea of continuous recording. Basically there are 2 viewpoints, one was that Body Worn Cameras should be on all times or Body Worn Cameras should be only in certain times. [inaudible] the officers should not be required to have a bodo worn camera on for the entire shift. What the group felt is the listed circumstances presented in the draft policy would be essential to cap chrture what the group felt was necessary information or footage that officer should capture without compromiseing public safety. We looked at the balance of privacy right and individual Community Members with obtaining footage in the essential areas and felt the policy strauck a balance and if we maintain for those services that would susuffice. June 30 was the third meeting and in that meeting we worked off the previous draft as i mention before. Each meeting we ent along we revice the draft policy and then work off the previous draft, put our draft up from the previous meeting on the website as well as our minutes and notes. In that meeting we talked about more aboutwe went back to the purpose and we changedmade a change in the actual wording; we referred to Body Worn Cameras as [inaudible] and moved to the Body Worn Camera, with the current vernacular. If you look at previous draft policies from the first you notice the difference and that is the reason, it was to keep up with the currents vernacular. In that meeting we again talked about the termation of recordings. When a officer could turn off a camera in a incident opposed to actually not toning it on at all. That would be also on page 3, section e. Then we got into the discussion of the viewing of the footage of Body Worn Cameras. Basically we had the discussion if officers should be allowed to view the recording prior to writing a incident report. This is the first time in the process we did chbt get complete cuns snss from the group in keeping with president loftus and commissions directives we presented both sides of the issues in our note section and in the accompany minutes of that particular meeting. Next slide, please. July 14 we met for the 4th time. Again, we again discussed the viewing of body worn recordings. Again at that point we still hadnt come to consensus. We moved on to the documentation when and how officers document the usage of Body Worn Cameras. We talked about the use of recordings and duplication and distribution under what circumstances would camera footage be duplicated, whom it is distributed to and also talked about retention time and misconduct and procedures that the department would follow in those cases. Also, in that meeting the day prior i received a letter from the aclu that day prior to the meeting and invited to attend had meetings the aclu was unable to participate but sent a letter with thoughts and concerns. Being we just received the letter prior to the meeting we put that on the ajnda for the next meeting so the group has sufficient time the read the letter and digest the contents. July 28 we all our 5th meeting and in that meeting again we discussed the issue of the viewing of Body Worn Cameras and discussed again, whether a officer should be allowed to view the video before writing a routine or basic incident record and number 2, prior to being interviewed for a administrative or crimial investigation. Next slide, please. Technical difficulties i think. There we go. In the we discuzed the aclu letter dated on the 13th. In that letter one the main concerns that the working group had was there was a comment that the aclu felt the working group hadnt delivered transparency in full debate. Invited to the working groups, the aclu wasnt able to attend and the group felt given the format and set up the meetings and they were Public Meetings that all our materials were made public each step the way we felt that we had in fact fully complied with the public process. Next slide, please. On august 11 we met for the 6th time and in that meeting again we had the discussion regarding the viewing of the footage. Again, we had discussion on what an immediate investigation would entail, how that would play out in terms of viewing of video by officers prior to making a statement or writing a report. Again, after that meeting we had not come to consensus and we included notes in the draft policy that we presented to the Police Commission as well as our minutes. Another area we had discussion is regarding retention. The majority of the working group felt a 2 year retention time for recording should be a minimum. The original recommendation was 1 year retention time, but the group also recommended that a comprehensive cost benefit analysis should be conducted prior to determining any type of retention length because that is definitely important for including in the equation when you talk about how long to keep a video as storage cost are directly related to become expensive from year to year. It is important to get actual cost benefit analysis and determine that prior to making that decision. Next slide, please. Also in that meeting director hicks presented a report that had just been released by the office of inspector general, the nypd and it was suggested and mentioned that this recommendation in this report also be added to the packet of information we present today the Police Commission so they could include that when they make their decision process. During that meeting we updated the draft policy to reflect changes we made on the final day which was august 11 and we all agreed upon the changes that woe made that change in that meeting and you see the final draft was dated august 11 which is that day we met. Next slide, please. On that day we took a vote an