Advocate on behalf of the chief when its an internal disciplinary matter. Something thats not arising from a citizens complaint. Speaker thank you for that clarification. Vice president turman. Speaker the april 3, 16 report, item number 6 under discipline, the officer was suspended for how many days . One day. One day. Is that consistent with similar instances . Commissioner turman, the occ does not have access to all of the discipline thats imposed by the Police Department. I cannot speak to whether or not it is consistent. What were receiving now and had not been receiving in the past is information from internal Affairs Division of whether or not an officer has passed discipline, and in that way, and looks in the discipline schedule, i can recommend an elevated level of discipline, and so whether this is consistent with past discipline imposed, i think a question that the chief could answer through looking at internal affairs records. Chief, can you offer any enlightenment there. S
Deputy chief hector sinus for acting chief tony chaplin and the director of the occ joyce hicks. Thank you, good evening, everyone. Welcome to the july 6th Police Commission meeting. Thank you for being here. Weve got a full house, and a long agenda with a lot of important items. Were going to go ahead and ive had a request from supervisor avalos who has to take a plane tonight to move our agenda around, so colleagues, ill note were going to move item number 2 first. And take that before item number 1 to accommodate the supervisors schedule. Before we do that, just im going to ask the sergeant to remind us all of the rules of order of the Police Commission. We want to hear from everyone and there are some specific rules that governor how we do Public Comment and all that. So sergeant please read those. Speaker thank you, everyone. Speaker rules of order, members fts public to end titled to comment on items prior to action taken on that item. In addition, the agenda shall provide an opp
That does not account for others that come into the area that work here, who have a 49 square mile city. So these people do the odds. There are some bad apples everywhere. If we have them have this background check, we can eliminate some of the bad apples, it will be good for both industries, im urging an aye vote here. Supervisors, we are your City Industry and were being thrown under the muni vote. If they start putting taxicabs out of business when theyre really close, they can do whatever they want because they have no 1 regulating, thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good evening, thank you for allowing us to speak, my name is marcel. I have been driving a taxi full time in this city for 28 years. I came here to urge this board to support supervisor peskins resolution urging the cpuc, to adopt fingerprinting, for all drivers, its a noncontroversial safety measure for drivers. It is the most reliable way to confirm a persons, identity. If i could have the overh
Officers, of citizens, complaints, is that correct . And real estate. Somebody said real estate. Okay. No. The original proposal, if i may madame president , had both the office of labor standards and enforcement nocc under the public advocate, the amendment made in committee was actually with respect to both offices not have them been under public advocate, but to have the public advocate appoint the heads so the officers, were not moved under public advocate, actually, the public advocate had the ability to appoint. So that was different. But you didnt pull them out, you just changed it . I dont understand the question. For some reason, i was under the impression for example, office of citizens, complaints, was removed from public advocate in committee, and now placed back in but in a different form. What happened in committee is the way the olsc and the occ were left after i amended. After the committee made the other amendments, is those 2 offices were not under public advocate, th
Complaints, is that correct . And real estate. Somebody said real estate. Okay. No. The original proposal, if i may madame president , had both the office of labor standards and enforcement nocc under the public advocate, the amendment made in committee was actually with respect to both offices not have them been under public advocate, but to have the public advocate appoint the heads so the officers, were not moved under public advocate, actually, the public advocate had the ability to appoint. So that was different. But you didnt pull them out, you just changed it . I dont understand the question. For some reason, i was under the impression for example, office of citizens, complaints, was removed from public advocate in committee, and now placed back in but in a different form. What happened in committee is the way the olsc and the occ were left after i amended. After the committee made the other amendments, is those 2 offices were not under public advocate, they remained where they