supervisor chu: b3 is about the number of retirees receiving pensions. i would agree with that finding. -- that finding. finding c1 about proposition h, i agree with the department's response about incorporating that in our findings. and then c2, i agree with the funding. supervisor elsbernd: which department specifically were you agreeing with? supervisor chu: for b3, i think all folks are in agreement with that one. c1, we can incorporate the mayor's office response as well as the department of human resources response. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. supervisor chu: c2, the

liability it was approximately $2.76 million. d1 -- they have been able to inflate retirement benefits. i would recommend that we agree with the mayor's office response in addition to incorporating the department of human resources response. chairperson mar: is there any objection to that? seeing none. supervisor chu: for e1, i agree with the mayor's office response as well as dhr's added comments. supervisor chu: -- chairperson mar: any objection? supervisor chu: f1, i think most people are in agreement with that. f2 is not something i would respond to.

recommendation 1 -- supervisor elsbernd: finding f2 is something the civil grand jury has requested the board respond to. chairperson mar: 2 recommendation -- to recommendation a1? supervisor chu: i thought i did not have to respond to f2. >> you have to respond to the finding, but not the recommendation. supervisor chu: i think most people would agree with that one. recommendation a1, that the city charter should be amended, i agree with the mayor's office recommendation on that, or their response to that.

we should recommend looking further into the recommendations. supervisor elsbernd: i want to chime in on that one. i agree that this recommendation needs further analysis, but i do want to disagree with the mayor's comments that under no circumstances should a hybrid plan be analyzed. i think that is a tad myopic. i agree need to put all options on the table. attend a particularly we should look at hybrid plans for our employees who make significant salaries. i absolutely agree a defined benefit plan should only apply to our lower wage workers. with all due respect, i think some of our employees in the city make over $200,000. i do not think we need to guarantee them a defined benefit plan and we can come up with a

hybrid where they can get a 401k. i do not think that would be too politically difficult to get. it is the responsible thing to do. it honors with a defined benefit plan is all about. it was never supposed to ensure a golden parachute. it was supposed to ensure a safety net. defined benefits that give, as the grand jury has reported, pensioners well in excess of $100,000 -- will have a few in excess of $200,000 -- was never the purpose. i want to disassociate these kinds of absolute "no way will we ever consider a hybrid." we should at least say we will discuss it. supervisor maxwell: i think that is a good point, primarily the recommendation. some of the recommendations should be explored and require

further analysis. supervisor elsbernd: i am ok with that. supervisor chu: -- chairperson mar: thank you. supervisor chu: the board of supervisors should come up with a plan in one year to come up with a way to fund the underfunded pension costs. i agree. we should not enter into an agreement with the unions without voter approval -- i would disagree with that. i think we should incorporate dhr's response. b3, chr should compare -- dhr should compare retiree benefits and other cities. the city should implement legal action. i disagree with that. i will incorporate the city

attorney's response. chairperson mar: is there any objection? seeing none. supervisor chu: recommendation to -- obligations required by the city charter, etc. i think that is something we would agree with and we will probably and dhr's responses to that. >> it has already been implemented? supervisor chu: i would agree with it. recommendation d1 has a number of different recommendations. there are a number of things recommended for the city to look into. i agree with the city looking at all these options as potential items which can i evaluate and to further analyze. chairperson mar: any objection to that? ok. supervisor chu: d1 we should

meet to form a cost sharing agreement -- i would agree with that. chairperson mar: seeing no objection. supervisor chu: is that all? we have gone to all of them? that is it. chairperson mar: there is a motion to adopt these findings and recommendations as revised or amended. seeing no objection, that is our directive. you are going to spend time to draft it based on comments from the meeting -- is that right? thank you everyone for coming out. supervisor maxwell: i would just like to thank the grand jury. we are so very fortunate to have people like you who care enough about our city that you do this hard work. i just want to thank you for all that you do and for keeping us

honest, for making us think about it, for letting folks know we do have people like you that are watching and going over things. again, thank you for your work. thank you for all you have done today. this work is extremely important. again, thank you very much. chairperson mar: thank you also to the staff that spent hours, and hours responding to the civil grand jury. we have adopted these findings and recommendations. is there a motion that we can close the file? >> what action will be taken on item 1? supervisor chu: i will make a motion to file item one and to send item to forward with the incorporated changes. chairperson mar: without objection. are there any other items to be forwarded?

>> no. there are not any. chairperson mar: thank you. the meeting is adjourned.

>> about four years ago, [inaudible] look at how beautiful this was. there is our relationship to the planet. these regions are the wealthiest, the most powerful. that really has impacted the planet. it is almost impossible now to go anywhere and had it really be completely dark. there are very few locations that you can find. that means our relationship to the sky, there is a way where we

dominate the sky. we cannot see anything really. we are blinding ourselves in a way. >> you can look at the images, they are beautiful. when i started four years ago, there was a conversation about environmental issues that was very different. this is not being talked about in the way it is now. . this has just been like an amazing growth. i anticipate the project to be

something that opens a dialogue to public interest in these ideas. so the work is really made to be seen in this environment. it's been show in museum, in gallery, but never in a public setting. and it's kind of ideal for both myself and the works to have this real dialogue with the public not only in san francisco but people coming from all over the world. >> since the dawn of electricity, that light is something that people feel connected to and inspired by. personally, there is space to keep that alive, just finding balance. the key is to find some balance.

captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> what everybody please stand for the pledge of allegiance? >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> ladies and gentlemen, please direct your attention to the commissioners. president marshall: present. vice-president mazzucco: present. commissioner dejesus: present. commissioner chan: present. >> james hammer is excused this evening. all seceded is the assistant chief of police and also as

someone from the office of citizen complaints. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. this is the meeting of the san francisco police commission for wednesday, september 22. we have a lot of items tonight in closed session. we will get to them as quickly as possible. we will move things around a little bit. he will call item one. >> item 1 is general public comment. this is where members of the public may addressed the commission. these are items that do not otherwise appear on the commission. >> you have three minutes. >> members of the police commission, i am the director of san francisco open government.

i happen to be a gentleman that took the police department to the sunshine ordinance task ordinance for failure to follow the sunshine ordinance. the police department does not like the sunshine ordinance. it does not like anybody delving into anything that is their business without their knowledge and approval. about three years ago, i tried to get a couple of other documents. i made about 20 different phone calls to my local precinct. i have a whole bunch of officers and staff members who had no understanding of sunshine. they ask me questions like, who are you? why do you want it? if they did not approve of what i said, they hung up on me. one told me to go f myself.

they require a listing of all of the documents that they keep as a matter of public record. public records do not belong to your department. they do not belong to any individual officers. they are the property of the citizens and county of san francisco. after 10 years from 1999-2009, when i found out that there was nothing on the index of records, i filed the complaints. after a long, drawn-out battle, i finally got determinations that you and the police department were in violation of the law. there is something in place on the web site. if you read the section of the ordinance, it in no shape, way, manner, or form does what the law requires. you are law officers. you are supposed to ensure that

the law is adhered to. whether you like the sunshine ordinance or not, it was passed by the citizens of san francisco. getting access to documents at the police department should not be the struggle that it is. you have one telephone number with which you can get information. everything else is kept secret. i would be willing to bet that 90% of what you have would have no problem with members of the public previewing or seeing those. there is no way for members of the public to access those documents without going through a lot of hassle and sometimes having their rights denied to have it. you are under oath to uphold the a constitution of the united states. you violate not only their civil, but their constitutional

rights. >> next speaker please. >> hello. i have always come here to talk about mind control weapons. the threat has greatly escalated. as i informed you guys through visits, some police officers, look at how serious this is, police officers have been attacked. i have told reilly, james, jim, investigations, i have spoken to a lot of other people. sergeants and police officers

alike. nothing has happened regarding this matter. nothing at all. the main person who was working on this, officer kelly dunn is not here. she has missed appointments. i want you to understand that one person is not doing find due to their thoughts and actions being affected by the weapon. it is not working out at all. i do not know what you are doing. these are horribly tortured people. they are really tortured people. there are some cases of homicide from various accounts and everything like this. this is not right at all. we have had this for the last

three or five years. there is no help whatsoever. now they are attacking. even before, they are attacking police, fbi, and military personnel. the threat is greatly escalated. i want you all to realize that you have to do something about this now. the main person in charge of this, it is not showing up. she basically cannot do her job. she will not be able to think. i want you to know how you are going to combat this threat. i have a death threat regarding this case. this is something that is insanely serious. nothing is happening. please do something about it quickly. i cannot stress this any further. your officers are not fine at all.

>> further public comment? seeing none, thank you. lt.. call item two, please. >> reports to the commission. discussion item. >> good evening. hello, president marshall. how are you? president marshall: good. how are you? >> as of today to what we have 36 homicides. violent crime is down 5%. this is as of september 18. property crimes down about 10%. this year, we have had 22,272. we are down 9% on part one

crimes. do we want to have the capt. do his presentation now? >> yes. >> good evening, commissioners. i apologize. i could not give notice. we will try to do better. i am here to briefly address the crime situation in the area of the mission district. the dwelling and the surrounding area is located. as you can see, the dwelling is

in this sector of the district. this is the southeast portion of the district. there has been a slight increase in crime in the four-car sector. that has not been a real significant. districtwide, robberies were down 14% this month as opposed to the previous month. that is down by 25%. there were eight robberies last month in the sector. four of them, arrests were made. we are working hard to eliminate robberies altogether. of those robberies, only two

were robbery's with which a gun was displayed. assaults, five incidents this month as opposed to the previous month. in the district, it increased from two incidents to six incidents. one thing i would like to attribute this to is the fact that we have saturated the area with a lot of high-visibility patrol cars and. we are getting to some of these fights quicker. in the past, we did not get there quick enough. combatants when both directions and there was no aggravated assault. the common threat is that the victims are very uncooperative.

burglaries, we only had one burglary in the sector this month, as opposed to three the previous month. the major tool that has been very effective at reducing the gang violence in this area has been the civil gang induction. most dramatically, you could corroborate that by pointing out that in 2008, there were 16 homicides in the mission district. last year, there were four homicides in the mission district. we attribute a great deal of responsibility to that dramatic drop to the civil gang in debt