daily are done by people i have never seen before, generally young people. and basically it just needs to stop. i thank you for whatever efforts you can put in this way to help. thank you. >> hello, ladies and gentleman. i am christina harris. police brutality. i have been stalked, tract, monitored, and my vital organs microwaved by my old property managers husband in the privacy of my own home. officer james ramsay contacts the indian guy to say i was on this list to be raped. i do not believe other police officers would cover for a file

criminal police officer. those at the police department have tried to murder me and stock meet since exposing the terrorist, his wife, and others. i have never seen so many police officers around me than i have in the last two years. there have been motorcycles, motorbikes, and undercover police cars. the san francisco police department may have a blue coat of silence. police officers are out all day, criticizing others. when it happens to them, they take revenge and destroy lives. i have never done anything to anyone except have opinions. for this, my life and well- being have been destroyed. don't you think our tax money would be better spent on seeking terrorists instead of sto alking and microwaving innocent

victims' vital organs? >> barry toronto. i have not appeared before you in a long time. i want to welcome the new members i have not seen before. i welcome you. i do watch the meetings online and sometimes live online to keep myself up to date on what is happening with the commission. i do not have any conspiracy theories. no one is out to get me. i do not have any problems with the police at this point. but i do have an issue that i come before you once and awhile and i would love to ask you. i have to get on my eggs to beg you to do that if you ask me. i do not want to do that. i want to welcome the new secretary. i hope he does as well as lieutenant reilly, who is a

friend of the public and has provided me with as much information as i needed. i also have a lot of respect for jim hammer, who will be the next district attorney, and for commissioner dejesus, who had wonderful questions during the presentation on the medical marijuana issue. it was a very interesting presentation and i learned a lot from it. i appreciate all participation including the police staff. i am concerned about the taxi detail. it was decimated and is gone. with the number of taxis out there and the amount of illegal activity that goes on in limousines that try to steal the cab fares in the evening and the day, parked around the major hotels, and also when dealing with the baseball games and the illegal cabs that pain themselves as if they are san francisco cabs. there is a public safety issue

involved not only for cabdrivers but for the passengers they serve. this was -- allegedly, i think this was because some people hated -- excuse me -- sgt reynolds. you disbanded this particular organization and said mta would handle it. they do not have police powers. they cannot do certain things. police can tell the vehicles. they can issue citations and misdemeanors. -- they can tow the vehicles. the only thing mta can do is administrative fines. i am concerned about where the enforcement is. there is money on the budget from mta. the cab drivers and others pay into the budget for this for the overtime, for the training of the officers, and for having a full-time officer be a point person to handle these type of

enforcement issues. i beg you to ask the question. please. i cannot afford to come back all the time. thank you for hearing me out. >> i see the motorcycle cops have the cattle cars pulled over all the time, giving them citations. on sunday at 11:26, i got a frantic phone call from a woman who lives in a motel in the presedio. she said there was a woman in her building who shot somebody. i got out and ran up down the street and said, "what is going on? there was an officer-related shooting about 15 minutes ago?" he said, "how do you know that?

he gave me an overview. i found out the names of everybody from this lieutenant. the press were lost. was it a male officer or a female officer involved in the shooting? there were not sure. it was a female officer. how many shots were fired? five. was there a gun involved? yes. the san francisco media came back and recanted that statement in the press. the chronicle got it and that story kept changing. it has been 75 hours since an officer shooting and there are no facts out there. we have had three officer shooting so far. the chief handled the guy with the machete prickly. he held a press conference and got the information out there. the woman who tried to run over an officer -- you got the news out there. the rumors are running crazy on this.

i think the media needs to get out there and let the public feel safe that something is not wrong. i pray that it is not. have a great evening. >> any more speakers for general public comment? >> i am a san francisco transportation worker. i do not know if that is relevant. i would like to bring your attention to what i consider a sick joke called "date car." this is a tv show the san francisco police department is operating on. the car is driven to a certain point. the driver and passenger have a fight, vacate the car, and leave the keys in the ignition and the car opened in the middle of the street. this should motivate a potential car thief. why i have issue with that is it is exploiting a crime for entertainment's sake for one.

we are praying -- we are paying to create crime for entertainment while exacerbating the conditions that cause crime. you are not even sure if you are catching a criminal since it is left in the middle of the street. this is in a context where much needed social services that help poverty and desperation are being cut back. i will make this brief. if the concern is to stem crime, it is necessary to address the causes -- poverty and desperation. that car will not do this. it will only contribute to an opposite effect. in short, i urge the commission to see to it that this sick joke is put to an end. >> any further speakers for general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.

please call item two. >> this is a discussion item -- the commission reports. president marshall: i have nothing to report. i understand that -- do you want to give some final information and then we can move to commissioner hammer? >> good evening. as you all know, on saturday at 10:00 october 2, we will have our police commission retreat. i believe all commissioners have indicated they are going to be present. the chief and the director expect to be present for the last hour or two. the chief will be there from

2:00 to 4:00 and the director will be there during that time as well. just a reminder to prepare, if you would. i think that what we think about and prepare going into the retreat will determine to some degree the success and the product of the outcome. and with that in mind, to prepare, a reminder to jot down some ideas in terms of your objectives for the police commission. prepare a couple of minutes of presentation on item three on the agenda. lastly, if you would, think a bit about factors to consider as criteria in setting priorities on our many activities that come

in front of us. then it just one question. do you feel a need to discuss briefly what we are all thinking about in terms of objectives? is that pretty self-explanatory? is there any confusion between objectives and criteria and so on? president marshall: not tonight. [laughter] >> lt. reilly, you said the chief would have to depart early? >> you have to depart after 3:00 p.m. >> will have him with us for an hour. >> then maybe we should focus on 2:00 to 3:00. just an idea. president marshall: the agenda is set, yes? commissioner hammer: the agenda

is set. i believe it is in some final form. "riposted it this morning according to the rules -- >> we posted it this morning according to the rules and will be sending it out. i do have some materials with me tonight. commissioner hammer: thanks to lt. reilly, who has been working hard on the logistics of the retreat. we do have a facilitator for the retreat, an outside person coming in. that is it. president marshall: do you have anything to add? >> item 3 is a long list of things we would like you to think about. keep in mind the role of the commissioner, the relationship with the san francisco community, a relationship with the chief, relationship with the media, and a communication protocol. if you think about it

beforehand, we will be able to go through this faster. president marshall: you are giving us homework? >> we are. president marshall: thank you for all your hard work. you have done a great job. we look forward to it. do you want to talk about the proposed amendments to the disciplinary reform? commissioner hammer: i sent around a draft with proposed changes. a couple of months back, we amended the main rules of the disciplinary hearing. we set time limits with the idea -- in light of the fact that we had several cases and things that had bogged down a bit. what we did not deal with at the time is the problem of what happens when an officer chooses to go to a hearing officer that is not the commissioner. i think we have all seen the list of cases a couple of months running, seeing that some of these cases get quite old waiting for a date to be picked for a hearing officer to be chosen. i worked with ms. blitz and rand

them by lt. reilly. i sent you some major revisions to these rules. i would like to review them. if you have input i would welcome it. you do not have to document all this so we can understand as we go. the first -- i think this was commissioner mazzucco or commissioner chan's idea. we would assign a commissioner to follow the case. the lieutenant was left to corral the lawyers. this can take six or nine months to pick a hearing officer date. one of the proposed revisions is to assign at the outset one of us to monitor that case. i will go to the other proposed changes. in the event that in a timely

manner a hearing officer is not picked, the commissioner presiding would make sure this came back to the reassignment. that is the first change. it is on page 2 of the current rules. the second proposed change would change the selection procedure for the hearing officer. if you look at the current rules, it is rather blocky and it takes a potentially long time to pick that hearing officer. it is often used in civil cases with arbitration where there is a list, people strike names, and another list comes and days and weeks pile up. the procedure i am proposing is that the entire process from the time it leaves us and is assigned to a hearing officer takes 14 days. that is the parties have two weeks to agree upon a hearing officer and a hearing date within 90 degrees. if they do not do that within two weeks, which is quite a long time, it comes back to us for

normal assignment. that is the second proposed change. the third one is on page three, section d. the current rule reads no reassignment of case. that is the problem. when a case gets assigned, it can flow out there whenever -- for however long. i think the case has languished and not gone to a hearing within 90 days, we take it back to the commission either to be heard by us or for an individual commissioner to do it. the fourth is later on. it is on page seven, i believe, at least on my copy. this is to do with what happens when the hearing is over. under the current procedures, the hearing officer, who is paid 300 or $400 an hour, is given time to write a lengthy report including telling us what he or she thinks should happen in the case.

we have to read the transcript any way to come to our independent judgment, so i think we do not need someone else to tell us since we are going to read the transcript as well. this shortens the report to 10 pages maximum to be delivered within 10 days and focuses solely upon that hearing officer's observations to the hearing on demeanor and credibility. that is something we cannot see and it would be helpful for us to hear something that came up with the live eyes of the hearing officer. that is the fourth change. the fifth is at the very end, on the very last part of the current rules. this came up a couple of weeks ago. even if we sustain a finding after all these delays, we have to put it up for a further penalty hearing, further delays. i am proposing that we allow the commission the authority on that very same night to consider a penalty. we could continue it up to 21 days. it cuts down that link the

process. those are the proposed changes. i want to give lieutenant reilly credit for coming up with some of them. the lawyer has no proms with the proposed changes. if people have other ideas, we can take those and move on to the next step so that we can vote on these. vice president mazzucco: this is great work. it ties up some of the loose ends we have had to deal with with reference to the cases being farmed out to the mediators. this is great. i appreciate it. a lot of thought went into this. thank you for doing what you did. this is a great document. i am glad the city attorney's office look at it. we need to get this on the calendar for approval. our only problem now are those cases that are sitting out there with hearing officers. once we tie up this loose end, we will be in really good shape. thank you. commissioner dejesus: i had a

no-time waiver. there were not any rules to discuss when the discovery had to be turned over, how quickly we were born to set it, whether we would set it before the full commission. i think we should have a pair graf where for a no time waiver procedure -- a paragraph where for a no time waiver procedure -- >> that is 90 days. it is an unusual situation we are dealing with there. this is a case that did not have a hearing officer. it was one that was assigned to you. commissioner dejesus: i understand. but i think we should recognize it in our rules. i think there was a little bit of problem with the department having a longer time frame in terms of doing this investigation and turning discovery over. we wanted to set it quicker. i think we should have something to say if it is a no time waiver

that discovery will be served. commissioner hammer: what i was talking about was the supplemental rules. i think you are suggesting an amendment to the general rules regarding disciplinary series -- hearings. am i right? commissioner dejesus: i just think we should let out a procedure very clearly. commissioner hammer: i would be happy to work with you to compose that. i think it is a good idea. commissioner chan: this looks great. there are some ideas in here i had not thought about that make sure that we stay on top of a case and that the system cannot be gamed and that cases are processed as quickly as possible. i appreciate the time you put into it. the only part where i am not a sure -- as sure is the content of the hearing officer report. i see why you cut it down,

because it is a bit too long, but i wonder if you cut it down a little bit too much. the recommendation about whether there is sufficient evidence in the record -- i feel it is helpful to have a recommendation. obviously, we do not have to follow it. i view the hearing officer as like a magistrate judge to make the recommendation we can accept or deny. it is useful to get a recommendation from a person who heard the evidence. when the commissioner is assigned to the case, at date report that to the commission. commissioner hammer: i am very open to the suggestion. currently, there are a lot of things the report. it is a master's thesis. it has taken months sometimes. their report on basically every charge, which for me is overkill. what i would find useful is a recommendation if there was insufficient evidence on a particular account. would that address where you are

talking about? commissioner chan: i think i would just keep that. it does go to say whether or not there is sufficient evidence. i agree we do not need the list of evidence, the summary of fact, and the charges. it is just going to each charge and getting the recommendation. not that we would always follow it, but it is helpful. commissioner hammer: i am happy to incorporate that and it is interesting. to keep it moving, i want to have this report still short. perhaps if we expand it to 15 pages with recommendations. my fear is, commissioner, that if we give much more leeway to the hearing officer we will end up getting another brief. we will end up getting a brief from the department and from the lawyer. i do not need a third brief. commissioner chan: i completely agree with you and that makes sense. if you want to add a few more pages just so we can put back in the recommendation for each

charge, that would be helpful. the other items that you removed to make the report shorter make complete sense to me and i understand the goal. i think it is an important goal. commissioner hammer: so the suggestion is to increase it to 15 pages and include a brief recommendation whether or not charges have been sustained or should be sustained based on the evidence. is that right? commissioner chan: yes. thank you for hearing that out. commisser kingsley: i agree that the 15 pages may give the hearing officer a little more leeway to complete his or her job on this. with regard to the recommendations, perhaps we could make that at the discretion of the commission, in that we could ask for recommendations or not. i think that by including the recommendations, there is a potential of providing taint on it for our own individual judgment. i like to read everything and

come to my own conclusions before having a dialogue with the other commissioners. to have the recommendation of the hearing officer cannot help but provide some influence. i would like to have the option of having the recommendations or not. perhaps we could write this in such a way that if we wanted to have that out at our discretion. commissioner hammer: i agree with you about the tate possibility, but we have an independent -- taint possibility, but we have an independent duty. the only logistical problem is deciding whether or not we want it is another delay in the process. i want the close of evidence to trigger the 10-day period. if they have to come to us for recommendations, that could add the late to that. commisser kingsley: a suggestion around that would be that the hearing officer right to the recommendations but that it be

sealed and we opened it as a commission if we decide when we are having our discussion regarding the matter. commissioner hammer: i would love to hear feedback from other folks. commisser kingsley: i am laying out some thoughts rather than a black and white. president marshall: the other side of that is we do not have the advantage or luxury of having the hearing officer in our deliberations. when we are here, we get feedback from being there. i do not think this commissioner has done a hearing where i was not asked at some point about their thoughts. i would like as much of that and the hearing officers brief as possible. for me, i have liked the hearing officer reports. it gives me what i would generally here if that person were present anyway. -- generally hear if that person were present anyway. commissioner hammer: there was

another idea from commissioner mazzucco. that is keep the initial report short, to impressions about demeanor, so as you are reading the transcript and have in mind, but to have the hearing officer appeared in night we decide the case so we could inquire of their impressions. i do not know if that addresses these ideas. president marshall: it is either on paper or in person. commissioner hammer: in person, you can here and say, "what did you think of this witness?" these are weighty decisions about whether officers go back to the streets or lose their jobs. vice president mazzucco: i think it is a great idea because questions may come up and we cannot predict what our questions are going to be after a closing argument. that would streamline the report. i think 10 pages are probably more than enough for a report.

15 pages is too much. i would rather just have the hearing officer here after we see the report. we tend to over complicate things here. i think we just need to give them 10 pages, have the hearing officer present, and we can ask them questions. the key issue is what is the demeanor of the witness. did you believe that witness? that is hard to do from a transcript. that is the most important question. did you believe the witness? i think we need the hearing officer here. commissioner hammer: i would ask commissioner chan -- would that address your concern? commissioner chan: it addresses my concern. if the hearing officer is present, that is great. if it adds another complication were you are now juggling an additional schedule, i would say the default would be to have them present and if they are not present submit in writing.

we do not want the hearing officer's not being available to delay hearing the case. commissioner hammer: trying to integrate these, the 10 page report i suggested on demeanor. we are going to have one of us supervising this as the commissioner monitoring the case. at his or her direction, the hearing officer shall be present at the day of decision. if that hearing officer is not available, they shall submit a brief report not to exceed 10 pages on the recommendation whether charges have been approved -- have been proved. i am happy to do anything further, but i think we would like to move it further. president marshall: we cannot take action tonight. commissioner hammer: i think we can indicate to the city attorney that we are ready for that to be sent to the commission. president marshall: i will ask one question, which is not good, but i have to ask it.

on the reassignment -- what is the procedure now? i want to make sure for myself what the proposed change is. commissioner hammer: it is titled no reassignment of case. that is partly why cases have floated out there, except in extraordinary circumstances. now that we have all seen the docket, in my view when cases get old that is good cause. the suggestion is to rename a reassignment of case. the first provision is -- ordinarily, cases where mom be reassigned once a hearing is started, -- ordinarily, cases will not be reassigned once a hearing is started. if the parties have been assigned to a hearing officer and a hearing does not commence within 90 days, the commission secretary should include the discipline case on the agenda for the next