maybe there are other issues as commissioner mazzucco was telling us here. as soon as we know that, i think it should be considered an action item. >> first a few comments. i hadn't been aware of meeting or knowing what's going on. i would like to be involved, it's of great interest to me, but i haven't been so far. with respect to december 8, i appreciate, commissioner dejesus, that you have gone to great lengths to have people involved that were going to come and speak. obviously i wasn't informed that was going to be the day that people were considering. i understand. regardless, if it happens to be

a day i can't be here, i would request that to the extent it go forward, i am not suggesting that we do not have your speakers come, but would not want it set as an action item as a professional courtesy if i'm not here to vote. i will do my best inform understand -- to understand the presentations that were made that day, but i would like to be sensitive that i am part of the working group and also that it not be part of the action items that day, because long before i was confirmed, i agreed to throw a party for 150 people, and i have to do it that day or i might not have somewhere to sleep that night. so i appreciate that. >> i would like to leave it as an action item, and why don't we

talk off line about whether the whole thing should be moved or maybe do it in pieces. >> chief, do you have any idea what it will take commander mahoney to get ready for the 8th? >> first of all, i agree with the order. the order is out-dated and it really needs to be relooked at. i agree that religion and other things ought to be considered. this is a different world today. there are a lot of different concerns. there are actually maybe issues that we have some legal research as to what can be released in the public and what cannot be released in public. i believe it would be very

appropriate for the commissioner to try to work with the department. i don't want to speak for the federal attorney, because i know there may be impolitics in federal law here. we are working in ernest and we will proceed as quickly as we can. vice president mazzucco: commissioner hammer? new hampshire i would ask -- commissioner hammer: i would ask that we grant professional courtesy that night. i would propose that we take the evidence he's asked and that we not put it up as an action item. commissioner dejesus: all i am saying is i want to meet with the groups. maybe we can find a different day for everything.

>> i'm not opposed to do it. there is no reason we can't have an action item. >> to think it could be an action item is probably unrealistic. let's do it -- let's put it on the calendar for next week when we discuss the dates and future items for the agenda, i don't -- so i think that's great resolution. thank you. president marshall: i believe we are on item 6-b. is that the sole item on the

calendar? so we need that magical -- >> we have one more. president marshall: so that is the featured item? >> yes, sir. when is the date for the metal ceremony? >> tentatively set for the 17th. and i think we have all answered that, correct? >> the head of the schedule, yes. president marshall: the next would be for the holidays. i would want the commiggers to know the 15th would be the medals ceremony. >> thank you. any further public comments. >> in considering this item, i hope you will avoid what i see happening in other commissions, which is that they have a public comment on items at a certain meeting, and then they don't

discuss anything, and tche move on, and two weeks later they say, well, public dement is closed now, by you agree to have a discussion which nobody from the public can comment on, and it is one of those cases where the public feels like, what was the point of me showing up and talking? what you did is, you listened to what i said, waited tuesday wreaks and then had your own discussion. i talk to the board, the other meart talks to the board, and then they have a discussion with may or may not have anything to do with what either party said. it is too, too easy to let the public comment at one meeting and then two weeks later say, well, we gave him a chance two weeks ago. public comment is closed. now let us deliberate.

if the public has a problem with that, well, they had their time two weeks ago. my feeling is at any time a commission considers an item for vote, they should awlow public comment. people think that's inconvenient. you might have three meetings and people might show up three times. if i think it is an important item and i want to take those three -- nowhere in the constitution does it say you get to talk one time but not two. otherwise we would be getting the thing, well, you commented after the first meeting, but -- i go from meeting to meet, and

who do you see in the public? you only see in the audience, the people who have business performance before you. members of the public don't anticipate in these. bottom line, i think most people don't believe there comments make any difference to you at all. i left one time, and you went to closed session, and the comments were, oh, they are a bunch of crooks, they don't care what we say. that's the opinion of a lot of people. if you want people to participate, have you to do something to protect their right to do so. >> further public comment? >> please call the next item. >> item 7 is public comment on all matters pertaining to closed session which is listed as item 9, including public comment on

whether to go into closed session. vice president mazzucco: any public comment on whether we can go in closed session for disciplinary items that are proteched -- protected due to the fact that it is freedom court tested? hearing none. >> item 8 is a vote on whether to hold closed session. >> move, >> second. >> next item. >> the commission moves into closed session. [closed session 8:09 p.m.]