dates in lieu of meeting with the entertainment commission and some of the several disciplinary matters we have at the end of the road. >president marshall: are their disciplinary matters coming up that we can resolve on that last week of the month? we like to take a bunch of things -- he is telling us that they're coming up, so let's calendar them as much as possible. all right, then that concludes my report. commissioners, do you have anything? >> we have one last matter, the 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]

oh, my! haa ha ha! ha hha ha! [snortg] >> good morning. to date is july 21, 2010. this is a meeting of the abatement appeals board. first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call]

we have a quorum. the next item on the agenda is the oath. anyone giving testimony today, please rise and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you are about to give it is the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. new appeal order of abatement case. the owner of record is karen. action requested this be abatement be ordered and the cost assessment fee be waived.

>> good morning, commissioners. i am a senior housing inspector. let me give you the time line of the case. this is a single-family property. basically, our division responded to a complaint in august 2002, an anonymous complaint that a deck had been built without the proper planning department approvals. inspections confirmed this in 2002, and a check on the permit history, the inspector notice of violation of earlier in the year, notifying the owner to get the proper permits. on october 4, 2004, the housing

inspector realized that no building permits had ever been issued. he issued a final warning letter. on april 15, 2005, the owner filed for the building permit, legalizing his death. -- deck. on september 3, 2009, the building permit expired without any inspections. our division, we had a new division director assigned. from research, he discovered that the permit has expired and issued another final warning. on march 29 of this year, the officer tried to do another it

out with some of the property but was not granted entry. she schedule this for the directors hearing. this is where the time line gets confusing. on april 1, we mailed our notification to the directors here. also, the owner had a building permit issued to correct these violations. on april 5, we posted the notice of the hearing and said certified letters to the owners of record. on april 15 of this year, we had our directors meeting. the owner of record did not appear at the hearing. the hearing officer decided a seven-day abatement was warranted. shortly after that, the owner was proceeding with the work.

there was no communication between the owner and code enforcement process. the process proceeded as the owner was getting inspections to comply with the notice. the hearing officer issued an order. it was posted on may 22. on may 28, the owner and received final inspection for the legalizing process for the deck and applied her appeal in june. the appellate claims he did not hear any directives taking place. all work has been completed, approved by the building inspector may 28, 2010. in order abatement was issued prior to the completion of work.

a couple of issues. the original violation was issued in 2002 but we did not get compliance until this year. we did send proper notification to the owners of record. we posted the building directly at the directors' meeting. the owner was in the process of correcting the violation when the hearing was held. she attended and stated the hearing officer most likely would have given her more time, a continuance to allow her to get the work completed. unfortunately, she did not appear and there was no testimony on her behalf. so far, the department had incurred a cost of $1,378. these costs are for all the inspections, case management, clerical time spent on this hearing.

i would like to introduce the chief inspector to discuss the change in title -- of title in property. >> very quickly. good morning. cheap housing inspector. there are a couple of things i want the board to know. when the notice was originally sent in 2002, the property owner was told if she failed to comply with in a timely manner, and assess the cost could be applied. also, the two warning letters stated that. the fact that she may have been having problems with the male is not relevant to that from the standpoint that we sent the information to her as she was on record with the assessor. unbeknownst to us, she was trying to sell the property at

that time and the title transferred immediately after the directors hearing. when we checked this, it did not show that because there is a delay with other city agencies as far as title transfers are concerned. it does appear that there is a new owner now. our recommendation is different because of that information. since there is a new owner, what we would like is for this particular previous owner to make certain provinces to the board that she will pay the assessment of cost and if she does not, i would like the board to give her time, 15 days to do that, and if not, we would go after the current owner of record to ensure that the amount of time, eight years, to legalize simpledeck. there was a