the public you till taoegs and child commission. that's okay. i preshlt, that in the 6 weeks, it has gotten better. the policy initiatives. the rate policy next, seek input from others on that, i'm also hoping that this small and growing collection of policies will be on the web so that we can point to that and say this commission takes rate pair issues seriously, we have' set of policies and evaluate against those policies, doing business well and properly. and one small suggestion, in the fourth suggestion on transparency, fourth and 6 bullets refer to the enenterprise easy. i suggested to add and bureaus,

so, it's not limited to the enter prizes aztecnology prevaeds finance and it, but, throughout the other bureaus as well, if you can make that small change. thank you again for seeking input from others. >> thank you for that comment and suggestion. >> i appreciate that suggestion to add bureaus. >> would you like to move an amendment. >> yet, and add baou roys in bullets 4 and 6, after each enterprise, and baou roys. life i okay, we have a motion. could i have a second. >> second. >> any discussion? any public comment, on the motion to amend, all those in favor.

>> ayes. >> motion carries. tall in favor, opposed? the motion carries. thank you. madam secretary, item 10. >> (reading i temg 10 from the agenda). ... with a duration of 5 years to brao vied comprehensive management, of cherry reservoir water shape as well as security of .... >> steve richie. general manager for water. this is 2 agreements. one for comprehensive management for which arey water shed and the other -- parallel to the hetch hetchy. we do care about the

water quality of cherry reservoir, so, we want to make sure we're protecting the quality of that reservoir similar to how we fro tengt the hetch hetchy. to provide armed personnel, to maintain security of our facilities on the cherry side. i'm happy to answer questions on she's. >> commissioners? no questions. do i have i motion. >> second. >> any public comment, seeing none, all in favor? life i ayes. >> opposed. >> item carries. item 11. >> (reading item11 from agenda.

>>barbara hale, verify to our customers the electricity, we are required under state law too make this disclosure and you need to attest to the voracity. we also have been working under the state law with the california energy commission and provided the same information to them, with that, i ask for your support, happy to take any questions. >> any questions? >> i have a question, just because i've lost the thread in it. helpy has been grandfathersed? >> yes. our helpy power, we have' separate stream for helpy power. our content label lists

our use of traditionally eligible and large hydro, and disclosing to the customers where the power comes from. that's not going to change as that are faz as we know. this is no expiration stated in the law as pfs passed. >> is there any credit if we replace some of that. there's also talk if you start to replace some. large stale that's grandfathered in, that there could be credit: >> i don't believe the law it covers that. at the time the law was under consideration. there are aspects to the extends that we imrao*uf them, there's an increment of an additional capacity because of

those improvementings. that increment could be eligible undered traditional rules. >> right. okay, thank you. >> any other questions. can i have a motion. >> move id. >> seconded. >> any public comment. >> all in favor. >> ayes. >> opposed? >> the motion carrys. we'll be going to closed session sortly, any public comment on matters to be considered during closed session? >> i testimony [inaudible]. >> what about that item? >> what we come out of closed session, we'll consider item 6a and hopefully dispose of it at that time.

>> is that why it's not in the top 3? [laughter]. okay. >it's probably to have a motion whether to assert the attorney client privilege during closed session. >> moved. i've i second. >> public comment. all in favor. >> ayes. >> the item carries. >> we're going into closed session.* * * closed session * * *

>> city attorney proposed, and i think it's correct, on page 4 line 1 begins. examine my quns (reading). the city attorney has pointed out that the sheriff and chef of police,

should now read, expect the mayor, and san diego, chief of police, william landsdown. any objection to that from the commissioners? do you think commissioners have any proposed edits to any of the remainder of the document? commissioner rennig? >> i have 3 suggestions for additional language, but, again, if in any way that would delay these proceedings, i will pass on them, but, i believe they're consistent with what the record was and what the

conversations were back on august 16. paragraph number 3. findings of fact. on page 5. after what's typed in there concept. incumbent. (reading). illiana lopez, ...grabbed ms. lopez such that he loose the her arm. .... in that regard, the commission did not find credible the version of the incident at the hearing. rather the commission found that the evidence contained in ms.

lopez's video was more credible. i think that that is helpful not only to the board but based upon the public comments that we've received which accepted the version and the testimony that was heard at the commission, by the commission from the sheriff and ms. lopez. many argued that it was such a minor incident that it shouldn't be misconduct. as commissioner remarked on l 16th, that was a very powerful video and was more credible and believable than the very sanitized version that we received at the hearing. >> mr. enli >> i i in that regard. the

commission did not fine credible the version at the hearing. rather, the commission, that's where i ended. >> find thated evidence contained in ms. lopez's video was more credible. hiech i thank you.. >> i think my concern with a statement like that is its breadth. in one sentence, we're making broad statements about a lot of testimony. i'm not sure there was agreement that everything the sheriff and ms. lopez said about the incident were not credible. more over, that's not really a finding of fact. what i think we we have

here is things we say happened that we agree happened rather than weighing the credible of one witness over the other. i think the vagueens of this is prop lematic to me, i would not have voted for that. will my fellow commissioners: >> i agree with commissioner r edding. i think we had quit a discussion act the video, and i think it is important to understanding our reckmentation. i think it's important to understood why we found what we found and why we found it to be official misconduct. that was a big part of the discussion. so, if it's perhaps not appropriate in the

findings of fact portion, perhaps we can insert that innocence in the discussion of the majority view. >> i think it would be more appropriate there. >> i have no objection. >> the second suggestion, goes to item number 7. (. my comments maybe, that it should go n rather than the findings of fact in the discussion portion, but, i would add, a

was sensed to 3 years probation, domestic violence. i forget the exact language, but, we can get the exact language and fine, it is this conviction and sentence that bring the misconduct within the time period when he was officially the sheriff. my concern here is that one. issues raised by the sheriff, and justifiably, because it is a legal issue, at some stage may have to be resolved. the conduct occurred before he became' sheriff. and without the constriction, occurring during his tenure, there might be some real difficulty in saying that the,

that that conduct could constitute official misconduct. having pled guilty of false imprisonment, that the conduct occurred outside he held the office as sheriff. and i guess i just want to, again, make it clear that we recognize that's an issue. and that is at least in my minds, how will that issue get resolved. >> i think there's 2 points there, i think that the fact of the imprisonment, sentence, consequences, basically, yet, the sentence is fine to me, that's consistent with what we

found. i am getting concerned if you're try to add posthoc justification *f, for the allegations made on the 6 tenth.