patrol special, i see him in the audience. >> good evening, commissioners. >> the beginning of last month, is he also a patrol officer? the documents and paperwork have all been filed with the secretary of the police commission? they have not. >> that is up to the sergeant. i don't know what is the holdup. i did not submit it. ray has to submit all the documents. it is out of my hands now. >> you no longer are on the beat. you're not collecting any fees

or royalties? >> no. >>, do they sell for? >> $20. >> 20 bucks? >> i would say free, but there is some consideration. >> i appreciate it. >> at some point, this matter will have to come in front of the commission, once the paperwork is done, to be in order and the proper channels. president marshall: thank you, commissioner mazzucco. comment on item number four? thank you. i'm osrry -- sorry. >> is there general public comment?

or is this it? president marshall: we had general public comment earlier. this is about the occ commission report. >> you don't have that at the end? only at the beginning? president marshall: yes, sir. >> i just wanted to say ♪ september morn i wnt to tah -- want to thank you for patrolling the city that way you patrolled until the night ♪ president marshall: sir, i don't want to interrupt you -- >> thanks for your work. >> i will send out the e-mail

again regarding dates for the retreat. commissioner mazzucco is right, i put not to respond to that e- mail, e-mail me individually. i'm sorry if i confused an issue on that. i had three responses. we will start all over again. president marshall: item 6, please. >> we have commission announcements and scheduling items. commissioner, i have no announcements. there are some scheduling matters we can talk about. commissioner dejesus: i want to add to the list of things to put

on the commission -- i think a couple of weeks ago, the chief had a press conference where he introduced his policy to the public. it is my understanding that this brady policy has not been improved by this commission and there has been no public hearing. this is a very important policy. commissioner hammer and i have asked about the brady policy. since the commission sets policy, i don't know if it is next week. i want to make sure it is on the calendar. i don't recall -- >> i have it in the list, commissioner. commissioner dejesus: that's fine. commissioner chan: i was going to ask for the process. is it the brady policy, or we

discussing this? i have my own idea as to what i would like to change. is there a process in mind? president marshall: the document was given to us for review. commissioner dejesus: the action item would be approving it? commissioner chan: my understanding about policy is that usually the occ -- we let the public timon and see what what they see are the flaws. it is more like a hearing on the report. but if the occ needs time to review -- >> commander mahoney will most likely be back for the

presentation so he can shed light on some of the issues. >> we were just going to be here to discuss the policy that you have in front of you. what you have been given is the policy we have in hand so we can entertain any discussion on changes, amendments, what ever. >> stop. i really believe that it is within our prerogative. i was not one that agreed to that. i thought it was proposed policy. it should be made clear to the public that it has not been approved by this commission. my understanding is that it was the same way we always do it, we meet and confer with the occ, the aclu or whatever. recommendations are made, and we decide what the policy is.

maybe i'm wrong, but someone needs to correct me. >> that is right. we should follow the procedure we always do when we are talking about dgo's or policy. that means including the occ in the discussion and letting interested community members know. >> we are following the protocol that we have. this is not a dgo, it is a bureau order. it allows for the chief to go ahead and put that out to the department. certainly, it is amended for you to institute any policy that you want. but that is how we proceed in this matter. >> that is the problem i have, and i guess i need to talk to the city attorney. i understand he put out a policy under a bureau order, and it

circumvented this commission as well as conferring with community members which we were told we were going to have wanted was decided that it was going to come here and to be vetted. it wasn't. i guess i need to meet with the city attorney, because i believe we said the policy for this department. we can change that bureau order, we can supplement it, or we can make a policy that completely contradicts that. i guess i need to talk to the city attorney about this. my understanding is that a brady policy, that is going to be presented here. but since this commission sets policy, we will talk about what the brady policy is. and we should follow the procedure we always follow. >> i spoke with the city attorney, and they said that we set policy, and if it is different than the chief's,

powers trump's it. our goal in being here next week is to discuss our concerns, either move to approve it or in the week or two. >> i would like to ask the occ. were you aware this was something that we put on calendar? it was made aware to us that it was going out to a press conference. >> the occ would just like a copy of the policy. i don't know if it has been supplied to our policy analyst or not. if it has been, we would just like a copy of the policy. >> if we have it here, it should

probably weigh in on the recommendations -- >> they would be recommendations from the director. president marshall: anybody else? >> is it for discussion next week, not an action item? i think we should have a discussion of possible action. we can send it to committee to work on it. it is just a discussion item. that would be my recommendation. president marshall: i thought that is what it was going to be anyway. >> that is why we have it set for next week. >> thank you. president marshall: not finished yet, sir. no, no.

let us finish -- i want to make sure the item is finished. >> commissioner, we did have a disciplinary matter that was going to come in front of commission later this evening, but given the hour, -- and let me back up. we had an issue on this particular matter, and that as members of the commission that were qualified to actually hear this. we had to put it off. i can't talk about names since we are not enclosed session, but this was a matter the commission heard on july 15, and there was an issue about having expert testimony and expert review on evidence that had been submitted to that was due on a september 1. i think the commission granted six weeks for that. but we have that problem so we had to put it off.

that matter is pending. i was expecting to be able to do with it tonight which would free us up for three motions to dismiss that are pending that we have, and if you recall, the city attorney recommended that they come back for additional briefing on some finer points. i have those pending as well, and i was hoping to bring those forward next week. we have the matter that we should have heard this evening now backed up, and we have a number of cases that are moving toward ultimate resolution. president marshall: we will figure it out on the calendar, lieutenant. >> we can't do it this evening. just so you know, next week, we discussed brady policy earlier.

the recurring report was due. there is a matter of compliance which we set aside which we were expecting, and we have a return to duty report in addition to those disciplinary matters i was referring to. i was talking earlier with the city attorney's office. there are some things that we might be able to do to give us a little more time for these things. it is just a matter of how early in the day we would like to start. if i can find available space in city hall, we would like to deal with some of these things.

there are other obligations and responsibilities. i was hoping to use the twenty second for a disciplinary matter that we have, so i would like to keep that available as well. backing up a little bit, i talked about the fifteenth. there is a disciplinary matter that i wanted to bring forward, but i am not sure we will be able to do that. i imagine we are moving away [unintelligible] so that pretty much shows up

september. -- fills up september. >> can i get an electronic copy of the bureau order? thank you. president marshall: now we will take public comment. >> good evening, commissioners. i wanted to congratulate the commission in all aspects of his department, especially in the crucial area. -- in the crucial area of policy. in regards to the rights of the defendant, whether it is

compliance with the department providing information that it is required to provide for those that are not -- that have not been on the commission for some time. it came up with the dispute with occ a number of years ago when the police department was not providing, and made a complaint, that the police department was not complying with discovery request from the occ. i hope it doesn't continue. lastly, i have been a representative of this department for many years. i find this department to be exceedingly -- it refuses to provide -- i don't believe we

can have a department that doesn't comply with the law. especially in the area of defendants. especially in the area of unions that they are supposed to be sharing information with. this department has proper oversight and complies with all aspects of the law, including the laws that they might not like. thank you very much. >> is the matter still open? is the employee matter of dispute still pending? >> it is on the command staff's desk. president marshall: that

concludes public comment. we will move to item number 11. we will not have 7, 8, 9, 10. >> commissioner, just for the record, with an objection, they will continue to items seven, eight, nine, and ten. >> would that be next week? >> we should try to bring it forward next week if we can. >> item 9a will be continued into next week and we will be continuing items 7, 8, and 10 at this time.

that brings us to the last item, adjournment. >> so moved. >> thank you. [talking over each other]

[thinking] glucose...plus oxygen... equals...carbon dioxide plus water... hey, gina, what's up?

and energy... pulmonary artery... coronary artery... teacher: i'd like to pass them back to you now. i'm very pleased with your work. ...two types of endoplasmic reticulum... 3:00 already? [girl's thoughts overlap] announcer: she's got the drive, the energy... the heart... and the talent. pre-med. announcer: but she wouldn't be here without your help. please support the united negro college fund. because a mind is a terrible thing to waste. >> that is right.

exactly right. or twice a week. hi, everyone. i'm executive director of the human services agency, the agency that administers the jobs now program, which we are here to talk about today. a month from now, the lesson a month from now, if congress does not enact -- does not act, this jobs program is going to go away. it will go way across the country as well. we jumped early into this program on the heels of the federal stimulus act in february. the act allowed for 100% federal reimbursement of wages to employers who hire individuals through this program. the idea in san francisco was threefold. first would be to get people back to work, which this program has done with a wild success. the second is to help businesses small and large to either maintain or grow during this time of economic recession, and last is to stimulate the local economy, which we have done

through the wages. $55 million in wages are projected to be reimbursed through the end of september of this year, and that is money going right back into the local economy. arguably one of the biggest successes of the federal stimulus act is this program nationally. today, what we want to announce, and the mayor will take the lead on this, is a new campaign or a final push to get the federal government to act to extend this program. $2.5 million will extend it for another year. we will keep the 3000 people who have been employed in san francisco through this program on the job. the last day of august, we had to suspend our program. we are no longer enrolling new employees. we are no longer enrolling new employers. for us, we are at the status quo. we have a month left. we're working hard to get our folks ready for the transition.

we hope to not have to do that, but we are preparing for pretty bad news. today, final push. the mayor will talk a little bit about the program as well. >> thanks, and thank you all very much for taking the time to be here. i actually just left senator feinstein, who has been a champion of this program. the reference that not to impress but to impress upon you that we need all the friends we can get all the champions we can get to extend this program. 3820 families are being served by this program. these are families, many of which -- close to, in fact, 1000 of these families were on welfare, and now pulled out of welfare and have the dignity of a paycheck and the dignity that comes with a paycheck. when they come back home to feed their family. that is not a rhetorical line. that is not a line just to place some politics.

that is quite literal. this program, arguably, is the most successful stimulus program in the united states of america, and i can back that up. this is a program that hires from the private sector does proportionally and benefits if the private sector does proportionally. this is a program that helps small businesses. for all of the rhetoric coming from washington, d.c., and sacramento and up and down the local municipal calls up and down this state and around the nation, here is a program that works. this is an interesting fact that underscores it -- congress, wisely and appropriately extended unemployment insurance. what is unemployment insurance to a family in california? it means you receive $450 a week. not to work. you are looking for work, but you receive a $450 check a week to work. congress, wisely, extended that.

a lot of republicans opposed it because they said we needed to find a way to fund it, but in principle, they understand the importance of unemployment benefits. here's a program where people in the trenches receive $447 a week to work. let me repeat that -- we can hand out $450 a week not to work, or 470 -- $447 a week to work. we can hand out $447 a week to work for those that needed the most -- people with kids -- that benefit those that need those employees the most -- small business -- to go out and create wealth and opportunity and stimulate our economy. it does not get much better than that. it is beyond mesmerizing, and it goes to my frustration with the extraordinary lack of leadership in this country right now on this issue of jobs, the rhetoric

aside, the lack of leadership that the fundamental fact has been ignored by elected officials. this should, more than anything else, drive people through the roof. you could pay people to work, or you could pay people not to work. if you pay people to work, and by the way, none of the folks you see right here want unemployment benefits. they all spoke eloquently when they were here, and that is just a small sampling of thousand- plus families represented right there are people who want to keep their jobs that do not want an unemployment check. they want to go home and feel good about themselves because they worked and have the dignity of a day where they feel like their life is moving in the right direction, not stuck in neutral. but congress is not acting. the house has twice passed this. nancy pelosi hast was processed

this. twice it has passed. the president and his staff -- and trust me when i say we have talked to all of them directly -- say they will sign this absolutely. only thing that is stopping small businesses from getting the benefit, families from getting the benefit, and individuals the benefit of the dignity of work is the citizens -- is the senators and politics in washington. you should jump up and now when you find out about a program like this that creates a direct jobs, that directly helps not just governments, but the private sector. 800 employers are part of this program in san francisco alone. 20-thousand-foot -- 20,000-plus people are about to lose their jobs in the next few weeks if we do not act. this is a big deal. look at the faces.

who is represented there? 70% minority. african-american community, the latino community, and the asian community where unemployment rate is exponentially higher than the state and federal average and even our local average. again, if it is all about rhetoric and politics and positioning, then support the status quo. if you believe in jobs and the private sector and the dignity of work than you want to create real opportunity and real wealth and real economic outlook that stimulates the community, then extend this job program. i hate to be so aggressive. that said, here is a study that came out that basically said exactly what i have just said and what we have been saying. it is from the center of budget and policy priorities. it's a walking away from a win- win-win -- it says walking away from a win-win-win.