occurs to me this is set for september 22 here in front of the commission. we have about six witnesses that are from out of county that need to come in. i also understand there is another discipline case scheduled for next week which is one that might be called a time-out case. we only have two more weeks to finish that case. this matter, i think, therefore, we won't be ablet to conclude on the 2 p -- 2nd. and i bo hate to have wints coming in from out of town and then not be able to finish the hearing. we had some conversations with commissioner mazzucco around the ways that we might be able to expand upon an agreement we previously brought to you but had not been with the commission's approval. we hoped that some of the additions that made to that settlement agreement would be something we could talk about on the 22nd in lieu of having the

hearings, since we won't be able to have the hearing anyway and perhaps gain the approval anyway. specifically, i think accused officer would be willing to agree there would be certain admissions made if that officer didn't abide by the terms of the settlement agreement. i thought that was the very creative solution, and it is certainly one that i think makes the agreement even more enforceable than it already was. and so if it is all right with the commission it would be a better use of resources and probably more fair to the winds if we have this on for settlement next week in lieu of the hearing. >> i met with both counsel, i actually met with him before, and there is a resolution and disposition has been approved by the chief. the main issue with that disposition is just timing. it is all about timing. we do have the two matters set for the 22nd. one is a no-time waiver, which would take precedence, so we

wouldn't be able to handle both matters that evening, and if, in fact, this matter did get continued, it would be continued to a date past the date that these accounts pr both agreeing with being an effective day for starting the disposition. i broached the subject with them and both counsel greed today, that if -- greed to today, that if the officer does not agree to that position, the officer will agree that each and every one of the legislation allegations in the complaint, he is guilty of those allegations, and the next step would be for this commission to meet and discuss punishment. >> different city foreign? >> different city attorney. >> we had a conversation, as commissioner hammer and dejesus know, people down at the hall of justice every day wave numerous constitutional rights, in a

matter of minutes they can waive seven or eight, and this here we can make the same a arrangements to facilitate this disposition so we have no one gaming the system, which has been one of the biggest complaints about what happens in disciplinary hearings. i mentioned this and counsel agreed to this. so the question is, do we allow them to continue to do that, or do we spend departmental resources for court reporters, hearing officers, hearings, having winds come forward, the cost of putting the case on? including this matter, there will be, as you heard, winds from other police agent -- police officers from other police agencies. my idea is to go -- my suggestion is the idea to go

with if the officer does not admit -- the officer has admitted each and every allegation in the complaint, he will be subject to the discipline of the commission based on what the department has qupped requested on the complaints. brshbrsh [not audible] -- president marshall: [not audible] commissioner hammer: i think there is a way that an officer binds himself to the agreement and there are ways that aren't binding, in which indication he could flip out in two months -- which indicates he could flip out in two months. he stays on the payroll month after month, year after year, and they never quite get the hearing. i can imagine a way that a binding agreement from the

officer could happen next week. that way i would support it. if it is not binding, i would not sign that. to put it out there, i think the way to make it binding is, he comes in, he ad mits all the allegations on -- admits all the allegations on the record with the agreement that if he retires on a certain date we will withdraw all that, but if he doesn't, we move on to punishment at that time. we admit them on the record with the understanding that if he retires by that date, we will withdraw the plea, but if he doesn't, we would proceed immediately to the penalty phase. that would be binding. >> commissioner, i should tell you, that throughout the course of the department, there was someone who told us it was binding. i concur that someone else in city attorney's office gave us

contrary advice. with that said, we're happy to do whatever you would like. commissioner hammer: would your client be willing to come in and admit thes -- admit the allegations that he would be willing to sign it. >> he would be willing to retire on the 19th offer 20th of november, and we would execute a -- an agreement binding that he would admit to the two allegations and they could proceed on the penalty phase. we would also want, however, if he did, in fact, retire, which he will, i give you my absolute

representation, for what its worth, that he will retire on the 21st. commissioner hammer: there would be admissions on the record which we could later withdraw. >> i don't know how we could fashion this. i want to give you a winding agreement, but i want it such that he would be able to say if they were isolated or wrong that he retired and the allegations were dismissed later on. we are wondering if there can be a piece of peapape which he signs, fully understood, admissions, everything else, but that -- force hamilton hament we do -- commissioner hammer: we do this in criminal courts all the time. we will save the city lots of money by taking this position and no one will be gaming the system.

we once discussed whether or not we had the full-fledged admission and then withdraw it. >> they enter their plea and we were told we couldn't reconsider, i would imagine withdrawing would be about the same thing. commissioner chan: commissioner, i have to defer on this. >> i know mr. alden has had this conversation with people in other police agencies, that that would be effective just to say that if on this date the officer does not retire, which i didn't brick -- bring up, he raised. that the ultimate disposition will be based on the charges. quite frankly, you add to that, you know, attorneys get a bad rap in this world, but if paul

cummings comes to this position and says he's going to do that, it's going to happen. so stimse sometimes we have to add something to that, probably the most credible man in the courthouse. putting that aside -- commissioner hammer: i don't want to step on you, i don't question him at all. i am just saying as a commission we should have a procedure where officers get bound to something, and if they sign something, and follow through, the case doesn't go to court. >> my suggestion to the commission is that we allow them, as we stand here tonight to seek a continuance and during the course of this week, i will work with them and get the appropriate document wherein the officer will agree, as mr. cummings said, to resign effective november 20th. excuse me, will admit each and

every allegation of the complaint effective november 20, 2010. should we take a vote on that, lieutenant reilly? >> the action item is to issue the subpoenas. >> i think if we keep it within the scope of the agenda item. commissioner hammer: so moved exact language used by the city attorney. is it a date we're looking at in a week or two? commissioner chan: yes. commissioner hammer: i want to clarify what the motion is. vice president mazzucco: we will add this to calendar next week for further discussion in closed session.

commissioner hammer: thank you. vice president mazzucco: thank you for watching that. president marshall: without objection, so ordered. >> i will make sthure that the witness -- i will make sure that the witness does not need to be here next week, and i will be here to discuss the settlement conference. >> thank you all very much. president marshall: thank you, mr. cummings. public comment on item number 6. hearing none, we move to item number 7. vice president mazzucco: some of the commissioners thought this item was on for next week. it looks like we'll have a new commissioner, so i ask we move this to the first week of october so we'll have the new

commissioner on board and it will be post-retreat. >> moving to item 7, commissioner, that is the election of commission officers. vice president mazzucco: i would move we move this to the first week of october. that is october 6. and by then we should have our new commissioner on board, we hope hope. hopefully we'll have them there fwor our retreat on october 2nd. >> do we want -- and i know that you all have been really patiently sitting on this for a long time, but do we want to move it at least a couple of weeks part that, so that the new commissioner actually will have an opportunity to be at a few meetings and see how things are going and make an informed vote himself?

commissioner chan: the only thing is, the new president's term is really being eaten up by this delay. i don't know if this will help resolve the issue that we have here. i was hoping that maybe del would be some discussions -- maybe there would be some discussions to resolve this. commissioner kingsley: i jufert remember my first meeting here and it was calendar, and i'm projecting that onto the new commissioner. president marshall: and you didn't run away. president marshall: so your first idea was to put it over. have we agreed on a date to do so? vice president mazzucco: have we agreed to -- commissioner hammer: it is my

motion to october 6. president marshall: all right. without objection it is now 6. president marshall: all right. any public comment on this item? all right. thank you. president marshall: we move to item number 8. lieutenant? vice president mazzucco: commissioner, considering the hour, i consider we take item 11 out of order. president marshall: so then we move to item 9? >> item 9 is public comment on

all matters pertaining to the closed session as described under item 11. item 11 a is pursuant to government code 5957 and the penal code, an action item, under personnel exception and discussion of possible action to accept or reject case number jwa c01-91 subject b is subject to the same penal code exceptions for personal nell exception and that is whether to sustain or not sustain this in case number alw-cl 9-0 and 11-c is subject to the same personnel exceptions , discussion and possible action to grant or deny motion to quash service and dismiss pursuant to california government code section 3304-d, defective

service, disciplinary charges filed in case number c-10-059 pursuant to government code section 3304-d. pursuant to a, b, and c. president marshall: item 10, please. >> item 10 is a vote on whether to hold the closed session, commissioner. commissioner chan: a vote to move into closed session. president marshall: we'll move into closed session, and we'll do it in here, and we'll take the items in order, unless there will other concerns. do the commissioners need a break before we go in? we'll take five minutes. >> thank you. police commission meets in closed session at 7:48. [whereupon, at 7:48 p.m. the

commission retired to closed session]