these awards were well armed by everyone of these officers. the heroism of our officers is beyond belief. it is an honor to be a civilian in that room when you hear about what they did to earn these awards. however, i am a tad bit embarrassed by some of the people that work in that room that day regarding to particular awards. i intend to be very frank. i was very bothered by something that took place. it is under the commission's authority to review two of the awards. i have spoken to the cheap about this and i think we are in agreement. i think we were both astonished and surprised by the voting on one of them. i have asked at this point in time that there be a re- presentation of the medal of valor presentation for henry parra and russel gordon. i can do the presentation. i have the documents before me. or the chief can join in with

this. before we do that, lieutenant riley -- reilly, can you tell the commission for each level what it takes to receive an award, whether it is a gold, silver, bronze, or a police accommodation? >> this is from the department awards. where risk of life actually existed and the officer had sufficient time to evaluate that risk. where the objectives were of sufficient importance to justify the risks. where the officer accomplished

the objective but failed to accomplish the objective by sustaining disabling injury or death. the second highest award of valor is merited when the following exists. when the officer manifests outstanding bravery in the performance of duty under the circumstances not required for a gold medal of valor. where the officer risks his or her life with full and questionable knowledge of the reasonable danger involved or when a reasonable person who expect his or her life was in grave danger. when the situation justifies the risk, and finally when the officer accomplishes the objective or fails to accomplish the objective due to circumstances beyond his or her control. finally, item c, a bronze medal of valor, the department's third highest medal of valor, members of the awards committee will

evaluate the risk, degree of danger, and determine by their vote whether a silver or bronze medal of valor will be awarded. commissioner, those are the three grades. >> thank you so much. >> chief, would you like to do this, or should i do it. >> i have the report. >> first of all, i would like to say that i agree with the assessment of vice president mazzucco. this particular case is one that i believe that the level of bravery and what it involves, quite frankly, was deserving of the highest medal. these two individuals, and we'll get into the details in a moment, not only -- they actually drove up on a murder in progress, one individual executing another individual. it was on a very crowded sidewalk. this officer's approach was --

they had no cover. they recognized that if they fire upon the suspect they would place other people at risk, so they restrained themselves and never fired, took the suspect in custody without firing a shot at great risk to themselves, and prevented the potential injury to many others, including them. frankly, i thought this was an incredible amount of courage, and i was really surprised. commissioner, perhaps you want to read the events. commissioner hammer: i definitely will. this was a memo prepared by denise a. schmidt. captain schmidt is now assistant chief schmidt. on february 17, approximately 16:30 hours, lieutenant henry perra and sergeant russell

gordon confronted a deadly situation on the 1800 block of irving street. at that time they were celebrating the beginning of the lunar new year. each and every restaurant on that block was full of people and families. i also note there was a library where children were coming out nearby. for outstanding bravery to respond to what they viewed. their split-second decision-making in an ability to tackcally respond and control the immediate deadly threat. their willingness to put their lives at risk knowing it was necessary to save the lives of others, their controlled and disciplined response -- it is important it was a controlled and disciplined response -- both initially in it and managing the homicide scene falls well within the guidelines of consideration and department recognition of medal of valor. the 1800 block of irving street is part of a light commercial

corridor which runs seven blocks west. it contains many restaurants, small businesses, and is surrounded by residential streets. many of these businesses are operated by asian business owners. february 17th was the start of the lunar new year celebration which resulted in an influx of celebrations. for several weeks several stations had increased the number of foot patrols to provide a point of contact with residents and deter the crimes of violence which have historically been directed at asian businesses during the lunar new year. so when lieutenant pera and officer gordon decided to drive down to irving street and walking the beat -- i notice lieutenant perra had six half marks on his shirt which means he had served over 30 years. sergeant gordon had served over 15 years.

they were walking the beat. they first drove the length of the beat noting there was a high amount of foot traffic and many restaurants were packed. they decided to walk on 18th and irving. as they arrived on the 1800 block, unknown to them, two men -- i will leave out some of this information because there is a pending case -- had -- let me move on. he noticed these two men in front of kevin's noodle house at 1830 irving street where both participants were having dinner. what started inside the restaurant escalated, and both men came out on the street. the argument became heated, and as the sergeant pulled the radio car to the curb, he noted the men on the street 10 feet from the radio car. the streets clear -- were clear

giving him a clear view to the heated argument. sergeant gordon saw suspect number one push suspect two backward. he told lieutenant pera there was a fight in progress. both men began to exit the car. then sergeant perra saw suspect one was shooting the gun toward sergeant number two. he shouted the fight had escalated to a shooting. both officers jumed -- both officers said they had no cover whatsoever. veteran officers with no cover went into this. instead of going away and taking cover, they moved into this confrontation. many times you hear the heroes of 9/11, there are people that run out of buildings when people are running out of them, officers run into them. these two men ran in. they alerted dispatch and other

officers to the shooting. lieutenant pera was withdrawing his firearm, moved to the sidewalk, and began shouting for the pedestrian assistance to get out of the street. in those split seconds sussspenth two -- suspect two fell to the ground and suspect fun fired additional shots into the victim. both officers shouted they were police and ordered him to drop his gun. each officer had his line field of fire. passing motorists, residents. they knew they had to end the deadly threat posed by the murderer, but they also knew any rounds fired on the street had potential to injury or kill innocent people. using their tactical training lieutenants pera and sergeant

gordon gave orders to drop the gun. there was no cover available between the officers and the armed murder, despite that both officers began to close distance and increase the likelihood that they would hit their intended target should the need to discharge their firearm occur. in speaking with them separately after the event, both officers remarked after the incident they were cognizant of being exposed to the gunman's line of fire. they were less than five feet away at one point without any cover. they believed every line they crossed on the sidewalk decreased the number of civilians that could be caught in the cross-fire and increase the fact they could detain the suspect. each knew that and also did everything they could. in essence, they were willing to become the focus of the armed murder's attention and basically become the target in the risk they would be openly fired on.

the suspect turned toward them, gun in hand, and each officer had the split second to know they were in the brink of using deadly force. with allths consequences, they each shouted directions for the suspect to drop his gun. the suspect raised his hand in the air and dropped his gun to the ground. the officers then went on to secure the restaurant ta thinking it was an invasion, take-over, not knowing if there were other suspects in there, while the officer also worked on the suspect, two, that died. there was apparently blood all over the place and they tried saving his life at the same time. so in conclusion, assistant chief schmidt wrote lieutenant perra and sergeant gordon intervened in the ultimate crime, a homicide carried out by -- i won't talk about the histories of these individuals -- on a busy sidewalk. without question their actions

prevented further bloodshed and led to the safest conclusions possible. their actions were taken with full knowledge that they were at a tactical disadvantage exposed to a murderer's weapon. they accomplished the objective of ending a deadly threat to the public. their actions rise to the level of a medal of valor, medal of honor. there is more to this. >> first of all, what i think made this extreme courage on the part of the officers, frankly, summers are not trained to go without cover to the situation. they are really trained to look for cover and then try to control this. they recognized that going for cover, because this was a shooting in progress and because there were so many other people around, was going to increase the likelihood that yet another person would become a victim of the shooting. i think further more it bears

repeating thrks kept closing in on the suspect because they wanted inform not only eliminate the -- they wanted to not only eliminate the number of people between them and him but because they wanted to make sure that if they were going to shoot, they would be close enough not to miss. that requires an incredible amount of courage and discipline. i think this is of really the highest example of police public service. i can't imagine why they were not awarded the gold medal of valor. >> both -- vice president mazzucco: both officers were willing to die that day. they are experience made a difference. commissioner hammer: i have a motion i would like to make. that is based upon the report of

officer schmidt that we amend the recommendation and award the gold medal of valor to lieutenants perra and sergeant gordon. commissioner dejesus: you should know there is a committee. there is a committee that votes on this. if i understand it, it appears that they came up with a different recommendation and the commission would like to change that recommendation. i assume it is within our role. >> that's correct. commissioner dejesus: the new commissioner should understand what's going on. this commission has made aa motion to overrule the committee's decision. commissioner hammer: my motion was to award as the chief has recommended and as commissioner mazzucco said, to the gold medal of valor. vice president mazzucco: i second that motion.

>> it certainly seems like a meritorious motion, but vice president mazzucco, you were at the meeting. was there any reason given for giving this lower medal of honor? i can't imagine a situation that would -- it seems such a clear thing to me here. if there are other issues we ought to be aware of, i'd like to be aware of them. it is quite frankly shocking that it wouldn't have come to us at that gold medal level in the first instance? >> vice president mazzucco: commissioner slaughter, i wish i had the answer to that question. i have been to three of these situations. i know i was shocked. the commissioners were looking at me with questions on their

face. only the people in that room can answer that question. was it politically motivate snd i have heard from the p.o.a. on this matter. it is part of the petty garbage that goes on in this police department that this chief is changing. that's what i'll leave it as. >> it is ai new process for me. as commissioner dejesus indicated, there is no rationale given as to how you vote. i was taken aback. the box is filled in 1878 and they have the number of marbles, and they are different colored marbles, and the presenter was a.c. schmidt. she gave her case. the officers ask questions, and every captain and command staff is present, unless they have

been excused, and then the box is circulated around. you pick the color and you decide who you vote for, and then the marbles are counted. if you have two-thirds -- you have to have two-thirds to reach a certain achievement. there is no rationale, i should say. like vice president mazzucco said -- commissioner hammer: so i hear you saying it is a secret vote and the votes take place and the results are the results. >> traditionally medal of valors had similar committees but you had to stand up and rationalize why you volted a certain way, but -- voted a certain way, but this is a secret vote. >> i participated in counting the marbles. only the people in that room know. put it this way. there was commission commendation.

commissioner hammer: commissioner mazzucco, i appreciate your bringing it to our attention. one last thing. i heard of the marble thing, and i thought it was an ancient fraternity ritual. would urge the chief to change the procedure. i think it sounds crazy. >> before we talk about changing procedures, from what i understand, this has happened twice in our collective memories, we seem to, for example, not be able to catch the ones that need to be caught, but we may need to change procedures. it is heartening inform know commissioner mazzucco, were you there to make sure this mistake got called to our attention. president marshall: i think it

would be fair to say the chief would take a serious review of the procedure. commissioner slaughter: it is the way they accomplish this. >> probably one of the oldest remaining traditions we have. >> i like tradition, i want to protect frigs. this is probably only the second time this has happened. we're there as a stop-gap. i defer tote expertise of the men and women in that room, but i also defer to the expertise of this chief and his assist yapt chief and others. so again, it is an ancient ceremony, and it is a great ceremony, but for some reason something went wrong here. it is clearly a gold medal of valor in my eyes.

president marshall: we have a motion. >> i was thinking, maybe we ought to do is look at the criteria. one of the things i noticed in the discussion, really, was -- we had another presentation that involved a case that quite frankly wasn't worth the medal. if you look at the criterias. but yet it got a medal. it was when captain corrales brought it up, so perhaps it is an educational process before the meeting that may help us correct this. so we can continue to have the system. certainly the commission can always exert jurisdiction after the fact. i think there were several things that could have been done better even under the current rules. if it happens often enough, maybe we can see how that works. president marshall: we have a motion on the floor. is there any objection? commissioner dejesus: i second it. president marshall: without objection, so ordered.

commissioner hammer: we need to move onto the rest of these medals. president marshall: then we can vote on the entire list. commissioner dejesus: this is difficult to read. maybe lieutenant reilly can tell us how we are supposed to be reading this document. i am talking about when you turn the page. are these separate cases? >> the questions would be the clusters of the names and the numbers and the dates that are on the left of the nims names. >> the process under 3.09 calls for three members of the captain's rank and they review

all the nominations for medals of valor, merritorious conduct awards, and they screen them for presentation for the awards committee, the full awards committee, which is composed of all captains, everybody at the rank of captain and above. command staff members all the way up to chief. commissioner dejesus: so nationals still part of the committee? >> that's correct. the department awards medals of valor -- gold medal of valor, silver, bronze. the next highest level awards below medals of valor are police commission commenation, a meritorious conduct award. purple heart, an example of which weigh saw this evening. >> and the date you have under them, these are awarded -- these are the ones awarded this time around? >> what these pr is -- what these are is -- what page are we

looking at? commissioner dejesus: the first inside pages. >> these are given to members of the department, generally for performing an outstanding investigation in a serious felony platter which resulted in the apprehension of suspect or suspects at the end of a crime series. so you're looking at, for example, up in the top mca -10-01. that was mayor toreous -- merritorious conduct award for 10 2001. you see the investigation they undertook lasted almost over a year from april 21 of 2008 to april 22 of 2009. so that was a long series of investigates that they were involved in and which the committee was recommending

merritorious conduct for. these were all different cases. the merritorious conduct award are those in successive order by the year of the committee. if you go down a little further, 10-08, this was a -- you can see there are eight officers involved in that matter. that was -- they were from the department's juvenile division, and also it is a fugitive recovery enforcement team. it was a protracted enforcement that resulted in the retraction of several joud standing wanted criminals. these awards or nominations are screened for recommendation as potential medals of valor or of the grades of award that are described herein. the committee reviews all of those. they actually take testimony and

they are able to ask them questions. >> these are recommendations from the committee. >> actually, it is the chief taking recommendation. >> i have done this before. >> it confused me tonight. we do have new commissioners, so it looks like we are making this police commission commendation. i think we need to make it clear the committee is recommending to the commission. >> that is correct, commissioner. they are all commission-level awards. they cannot be presented to any officers without commission approval. >> public comment? president marshall: we can take public comment before we vote. >> commissioner steve johns. i just want to thank commissioner mazzucco and chief gascon for redr resurrecting this tonight.

when we heard what the actions the police took, four people voted for police commen indications? that never should have happened. maybe we should go to a role call vote to see where everybody stands. plus i happen to know that i have had the privilege of working with both of those individuals, and they are of the highest caliber professional you would want at any scene. i must remind you that today is the third wednesday of the month . i have a few attorneys who are big chinets fans, they would love to see if they could get its cases moving -- the cases moving. thank you for your consideration. >> commissioners, san francisco government. i would like to make a comment about what's going on with this item. i would preface it with the idea that most people get in trouble not for what they say, but how

they say it. if you want to say something to somebody you can pretty well say it and succeed if you are careful in the wording or approach or whatever. there were a couple comments that were made. questions were asked, why did this work out the way it did? rather than simply saying "i don't know" comments were made that maybe it is politics and so forth. unfortunately i think it would have been better to leave it at an "i don't know" than to leave it to a suggestion of what might have been. the reason i say that is because if it is politics, that does not just throw a question or a doubt on the recommendation for this particular recommendation but all the other recommendations. and it in some way can ber per seeve -- can be perceived as detracting from the officers who fully deserved the awards and were recommended in the first place. all i'm saying is making comments where you are clearly "i don't know" is the best thing to say but saying it might be

politics or something else is raising questions that i think are fweth better -- that i think are better left. president marshall: commissioners take a motion to approve the awards committee recommendation. >> so moved. commissioner dejesus: second. >> second. president marshall: thank you very much. so awarded. vice president mazzucco: thank you, commissioners. president marshall: thank you very much. lieutenant one quick thing on this. i was, unless you tell me differently, in the past two years we have done this at a regularly scheduled commission meeting time, and it has been televised a couple times, so i'm assuming, unless i hear differently, that we'll do it during our regular commission time and at a location other than here. >> that's correct, commissioner. at this point we are looking at a date for wednesday in december, toward the middle of december.

perhaps our last regular meeting of the year we should get this up. president marshall: i only mention that, because -- thank you. president marshall: all right then. we will move to item 5. >> possible action to recommend that the board of supervisors approve the ordinance authorsing the department to receipt actively and extend grant funds in the amount of $424,107 from the united states department of justice solving cold cases with d.n.a. program and amending ordinance number 191-10, annual salary ordinance, to reflect the addition for three part-time investigator positions in the san francisco police department. president marshall: looks like