clearance and we should all know what is going on and if anyone is put in that same position where they have to go to the chief. i read it and i am concerned. i would like to participate in those meetings. i applaud you for meeting with them and applaud the department for doing what they are doing and i do believe the best intentions are not to violate it. it is not that clear in the document as it was in the previous document. we're just leaving it for something to excloud and then say there is no checks and balance. nowhere for an officer to go. no one in the department has the same clearance. we did not see it. that real important little protective language is taken out, our officers are bound by our constitution. i think that is a real simple thing that could be altered and i think we're just leaving it to explode if they are to decide what is in the best interest. control of the information. control of the officer and no one else is really going know. >> commissioner hammer? commissioner hammer: i would direct a question to commissioner dejesus. the first concern is how does the document get inside without them knowing about it? we're not going answer tonight. it is not on the agenda but it is a question. if documents are being signed which might undermine them. i think the question is what is the procedure by which something would have to be vetted by the commission to say wait a second, this is not what we ordered. commissioner dejesus: no, i talked to an ex-commissioner. this was brought to our attention. that was significant language that was excluded. if they could violate a d.t.o., where is the check and balance? >> where is there protection? >> that was raised commissioner hammer. that is one of the things we discussed yesterday. some say they don't want the police commission to review every m.o.u. that there are too many. but that is really important when we have had some discussions about that. but there will be, i want to make perfectly clear, our officers have been told -- commander mahoney has been advised when there is a conflict, 8.10 controls. that is an issue that needs to be discussed. we made a strong effort. i think commissioner slaughter was at one of the meetings with me. we're working towards -- it is a collaborative effort. i can't wait to have chief suhr there at the next meeting. >> it involves a general order. >> 8.10. >> 8.10 is sound. commissioner dejesus: we're also -- negotiating that too. >> sorry, i wanted to make that clear, that commander that honey has made clear to everybody as we iron out the small issues that need to be discussed. commissioners, any other reports? ok. so we move on to line item 3-d. commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration for future commission meetings. >> we tried to schedule something for the human rights commission and pick a date for that. >> what is our visibility for may 18? >> i'm going to be out of town on business may 4-may 11. i should be back by the 18th. >> how does that sound for the rest of the commissioners? president sparks once said when they have their hearing there is a report full of perceptions. not proof. it would be a perfect opportunity for us to get together and answer questions just like the one we talked about. how does the 18th sound? >> i may be out of town that weekend but i'm a firm believer in not holding the commission hostage to one commissioner's schedule. if i'm there, great, if not, i'm sure i will get a full report from folks. >> thank you. commissioner kingsley? commissioner kingsley: i'm not sure if this is really an agenda item but it seems like the most appropriate time to bring this up. i think as a commission as a whole, we want to give our thanks and recognition to interim chief down and might that be something that we want to do at our next meeting to be able to recognize him and have him here and be able to express that gratitude and recognition? >> that's a great idea. thank you. any further items for scheduling from the commission? hearing none, public comment on line items 3 a, b, c and d. >> commissioners, chief, director hicks. there were two things i want to talk about. one was the chief's report. again, we went over and rehashed the promulgation of the rules for 2008. i kind of sense a lack of responsibility being taken by this commission. they were your rules and last week i got the impression you were actually surprised that it was your responsibility to enforce them and i would also like to point out the fact that if the ruled have been in place for two years and they have not been followed, what makes anybody think you simply saying now you need to follow them, it is going to make an impression on people who haven't followed them for the last two years. number one, one thing i would like to mention is i was in the military for 12 years and if i had allowed any of my qualifications to lapse, my nuclear power plant supervisor -- i would be up before the captain or be charged with dare lix of duty you see -- dereliction of duty because i failed to do the things required by my job to perform my duties and if i had gone the extra step and still went out, i would be in court-martial. i can take a chance, a one out of three chance with someone who isn't qualified to use that weapon they have at their side. i know where that goes on. and also, the contract chal arrangement. every citizen of this city who contracted with them for protection did so understanding they would follow all the rules. they have been not been doing that and as a result what liability have they placed not only on the city but those people who were involved with them who rely on the city to enforce the rules and unfortunately haven't been doing it and that raises a whole bunch of other issues. now on the o.c.c. director's court, i will be honest with you. i looked at this and i don't see much different than what i see in each quarterly report which is a bunch of statistics. if you want to have an effective program don't just sit there and point at each other and say oh, i think you're wonderful. get two year's worth of people who participate in mediation and put the item on the agenda and get them to come in here and tell you what they thought of their experience. i really don't think that you would dare to do that. i have a funny feeling a lot of people come in and say well, i went through it but i feel i got hosed. because when you do that, you give up all of your other rights. my case is done. >> next speaker. >> commissioners, once again, good evening. i want to talk about something that is going to be very pertinent to the police chief and also to the city at large. we live in a very diverse city. yet from the o.c.c. i see no diversity in terms of the number of complaints made based on racial qualifications or background. recently over the last two to three months, i looked at the 10 most wanted list of the city. if you look at the background, you'll see the racial background of the criminals at large today. this isn't to pinpoint anyone's racial background. the facts are well known. the public at large is that looking at the murder rate, that it is african-americans killing african-americans. only 3.5% of the city but 95% of the murder rate. i don't get it. i had an incident here at the o.c.c., filled out a complaint three times in 2010. having an altercation with officer woods who is an african-american. he harassed me. slandered me in front of a caucasian female police officer. i complained and i also did my own interviews. i've been an investigative reporter also for various newspapers for a number of years only the find out that officer woods has multiple complaint against him. he was investigated. ms. hicks is an african-american and just put it aside. >> excuse me. you're not supposed to direct anybody specifically. calm down. address the entire commission. there are rules of the quorum. i expect you to follow them. we'll give you back 20 seconds. >> i'm directing the entire commission but when i speak on a specific report i have a right to address the director, which is not you, sir. i'm bringing up a fact here that i don't see in the statistics put together by the o.c.c. and if a diverse city like san francisco with a crime rate of unsolved murders would you call clear or unclear. the killer and the victim. particularly the victim, who we should worry about. we recently had a german family that came to san francisco as a tourist where somebody took out the man's wife down there off mason's street. we don't even have the makeup of who the killers were. all we have is that a crime was committed. some guns were found and that's it, sir. we need more than that today. i'm requesting more of that at the o.c.c. starting now. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i want to thank the commission for finally doing something about the patrol specials. it is not enough. the report calls for their disillusion. their complete termination. doing that tonight is more than you have ever done before that i know of. i want to thank you, but it is not enough. the report says they should be out of business. i don't know what has taken so long. it has been eight months. you have until may 28 before you can do a charter amendment. time is awasting. thank you. >> mr. johnson, how are you? >> steve johnson, the police association. i just want to bring up the fact that i mentioned to a couple of commissioners. that i can't see where when the o.c.c. does an investigation, police officers have to document the traffic stops they make and when someone forgets about that, how is that a citizen complaint? i don't get that. they always use it as an added allegation against the officer. that just doesn't seem right. it has been going on too long. they should notify the police department, the chief's offense or whatever. in an interview, a personal interview with the officer, that takes at least six months. they think there is something there, they should notify the captain of the station, the lieutenant, the sergeant. something can be done right away. it doesn't have to be a physical complaint or an interview or anything else. same with 849-b. certificates of release. it is another item that the o.c.c. uses to put an added allegation on any of their investigations and sustain it because maybe it did occur and maybe it didn't. but the real important matter here is whether or not the officer is purposely forgetting or made a mistake or forgot the document the traffic stop. a lot of times when officers address the o.c.c. said i did put the information in the computer and the computer maybe didn't take it because i remember doing it so that is more o a matter for the police department to deal with instead of the o.c.c.. we could certainly cut some of their workload down by moving some of the issues over to the police department where they belong. thank you very much. thank you mr. johnson. my further public comments? >> good evening. commissioners, thank you. chief, sir, congratulations. i'm looking forward to working with you for a long time. everything i have heard from all the officers in the station, nothing but praise. one of the things that you were addressing that seems to be on everybody's mind is a lack of qualification -- i would like to see something of this written into our rules and regulations holding us to the same standards that you hold the police department to. if the officer cannot -- he should not be out on the street. i concur with you 100%. and as far as lieutenant pera, i have talked with him many times over the past couple of days. i will continue to work with him. i will continue to hunt down our officers and speak to them in person and i will even offer to bring you that information that you requested personally to make sure that it gets here. one of the things we have found out is that lieutenant pera went to the police commission office to look for paperwork that was missing and did find some, so that tells me there is a little bit of lack of forwarding records. as commissioner dejesus says, i would like to see some kind of record access and retention policy that we can all agree upon so these records do not get out into the wrong hands and pass the sunshine act and also with the city attorney's office to let you know about the update with our training. i have instructed everyone of the officers that i can get a hold of to get their personal certificates of any training that they have received put together. we are forwarding them to our -- one of our senior officers, sam reyes. he is going to be in contact with sacramento to find out what each and officer needs as far as additional training to bring them up to at least a level three. my hope would be in a few years it dwose goes up to a level two and a few years after that a level one. one of the things i would like to also mention, the last meeting you were talking about, the kind of calls -- most of these what you would classify as c priority calls, barking dogs, a suspicious person hanging around. it was said that person should call 911 but we know c priority calls take quite a long time. i've heard of some hanging for 318 minutes. to the general public, that is not acceptable. again, i would like to say thank you. i concur with your insurance regulations. if you can hand this to supervisor mass ukea. president mazzucco; i'm not supervisor. thank you. i will hand it back to the lieutenant. i want to thank you for your hard work this week. you have been working with him. i really appreciate it. >> i am trying to whip a few people into at least a compliance mode the idea of the -- 1918 organization has to change. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. chief, congratulations. i've never heard of a police chief or police officer referred to this this city as someone with heart and spirit. i'm heartened by that and i look forward to working with you. i'm a citizen activist, very concerned about public safety in my neighborhood, glen park. i just suggest quickly that it might be helpful to the commissioners and perhaps more effective in your data gathering and communication back and forth, if the officer could speak immediately with lieutenant para and also if he would be given more than just three minutes. i think he is more than just a public member. i concur with the chief taking these three officers off duty immediately. i approve of that. i'm a citizen. i'm concerned about safety in my neighborhood, not only from criminals but also from unqualified officers so i definitely support you on that and thank you for your concern. i do like the distinguishing between very serious and immediate public safety issues such as lack of weapons, qualification and paperwork. there are two different kinds of offenses and i think they should be treated differently. thank you for recognizing that. i would like to say that my concern is not so much what happens with applicants who go into the background check division. that takes approximately a month. i have no reason to doubt that. what i'm concerned about is the initial application and the communication loop which is not being completed between the liaison officer back to the applicant. i have two examples. one wrote you commissioners yesterday and another is almost an ideal case. i spoke identical case. i spoke with him today. one was above level three. he submitted his pact two years ago. because of the change of liaison officers, there is a failure of continuity of records. there was by a former officer two years ago, a liaison officer promised to explain to both officers what is the precise medical language that is required in their medical clearance. that promise was given to the two applicants. or it was given to officer warner. because of the transitions and the change in her passing, it never got back to the officer. lieutenant hicks, lieutenant has reviewed the packets and apparently these officers are qualified. i don't know. but i would only ask that you look into that, please. these gentlemen want to work. we need them on the streets helping us. we may stand to lose some officers who don't understand they must now comply. we need to have good officers who are qualified and go through the process quickly and fairly. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hello, i'm mibling dening. i'm -- michael dening. i'm personally a big fan of the full specials, not really because what they are today but what i believe they can be for san francisco. it is clear that this relationship between patrol specials and the san francisco police is one that needs a lot of work and i'm sorry that commissioner marshall isn't here because i really liked his analogy because he was talking about the unruly plate round and how he came in here to make sure the rules were being enforced. i think the situation we have here is to be frank, i think anybody that is an objective observer here can see that the whole police specials program has been in neglect by the san francisco police department for a long time. there has been no enforcement or no communication or very little. so i think what we have here is a situation where we have a problem relationship and that the only way we're really going tosoever this relationship here is not by coming in and letting one side of the discussion come in and point the fingers at the other and say you're breaking the rules and any playground supervisor that saw people in that position would give both sides a chance to address each other in a timely way and make sure there was a good communication about what the rules are and make sure everybody understands what their responsibilities are and making sure that the relationship there is civil. and so i think that's what i'm here to speak for. i think there is a lot that can be done. here to benefit this relationship. it is going to take -- it is not going to take finger pointsing. it is not going to -- every side has to acknowledge the fact that there has been a problem relationship here for a long time and that borte parties are involved in that -- both parties have been involved in that relationship and it is not for people to come in now without really getting into it and pointing the finger at the other and saying you're the violator and since i'm the bigger and most powerful, i'm going to declare you guys get punished. we have acknowledged that there are difficulties with the program. i think that if the police department is being honest with themselves, they will have to accept some responsibility for the relationship also and hopefully as a result of these discussions that we're having, we can have a good discussion with the specials, the police force and the clients who are hiring the specials to be involved in this discussion in a meaningful way that leads to conciliatory environment. so thank you very much for your time. and for your interest in this particular issue. >> thank you very much. any further public comment on these items? hearing none. i would like a further update report on the chief's report regarding the status of those three things. number four, please. >> item number four. discussion and possible action to adopt revised police commission procedural rules governing trial of disciplinary cases. >> this i turn over to commissioner hammer. he has taken the lead. commissioner hammer, all yours. commissioner hammer: thank you, president mazzucco. i've been on the commission a little over a year and whatever we call it, there were a lot of cases on our dockets. i call it a backlog. in squgs the city attorney's office, -- discussion with the city attorney's office, existing rules, to speed up the hearings to get to a faster resolution, last year i worked with commissioner mazzucco. we coim up with something we adopted a year ago this months. case goes on for days and days sometimes when they didn't need to. setting up detailed schedules. aspirational timeline to finish cases. we would -- a hearing within 90 days of following charges. when i first got here the docket was about half of what it was over a year ago. kudos to a lot of hard work from commissioners. over the course of that last year, i think it has occurred to many of us some possible improvements to those rules. one of them, we started looking at the docket where the oldest cases were. somewhere where someone other than a commissioner could hear a case. sometimes a retired or former commissioner or an outside lawyer hears these cases. when you look at the docket you see some of those cases have been here two or three years. when you look deeper, we had to change it buzz he or she is very and there was no oversight and those cases go from a year and a half to two and a half to three and a half sometimes. i set out working with him and we worked together to come up with a further tweak of these rules to address the hearing officer issue. she on her own end went out to combine two separate sets of rules. we dealt with ordinary hearings. there was a separate set of rules we didn't touch. that's where part of the existing problem was. we should have one set of rules. and through a lot of work, i have one set of rules. i want to very briefly go over the major changes. so most of the changes were directly to address the concerns of hearing officers. one of the things we talked about as a group is adding a commissioner as a monitor to any outside hearing officer. if the case gets bogged down the commissioner could bring it back to the commission if need be.