an outside organization, an outside agency. based on that, i spoke to commissioner dejesus, a former public defender as i am a former d.a. i talked to the chief about this and he is working on this. i know the peel away -- the poa is looking into this. our role is to be a liaison to the community, but also to represent and protect the rights of the officers. there may be a violation here. commissioner dejesus had a few ideas i agree with, going forward. i do not know how we can facilitate this. i am being very vague because it is closed session issues and disciplinary matters. commissioner dejesus: basically, what i understand is this was disclosure of confidential and permission. that was to a third party who has disseminated that

information among private parties, which i have to say is mind boggling. i still have a difficult time getting my mind around this. it seems to me that this dissemination is improper, that it violates a lot of rules and acts in our own policy. i guess my suggestion was with certainly need to investigate how this was released. we should do a basic investigation. the weight -- the city attorney should bring a motion to retrieve the impression that was improperly disclosed. i do not know if it is inadvertent disclosure or what, but it is information that needs to be retrieved as well as a motion for a protective order, if not a gag order, on the third order disseminating information i believe they have a violation of so many different things in policy and law. i am stunned to hear this. i still am having a hard time grasping misinformation --

grasping this. we set up a policy and procedure to protect this information, and someone is disseminating it as they see fit. my understanding is that on an individual case by case basis a judge would look at the information in camera. if any of the information needs to be disclosed, the judge would decide that. and people would have rights to prevent the information from going forward if they think it was wrongfully put on the list. there is so much wrong with this that we need to move quickly. need to bring a motion to superior court to stop this. vice president mazzucco: again, we're being vague because this involves disciplinary matters and confidential information. thank you. >> [inaudible] commissioner dejesus: i am happy to work to stay on top of this. we need to get it back quickly.

commissioner hammer: i just wanted to report to the other commissioners. commissioner dejesus and i met today with the head of the patrol specials. vice president mazzucco was not able to come. we passed on the problems that the boston report pointed out and told them in straight terms the things you have to do to address those concerns. we are hoping to have their response and put this back on the commission agenda sometime relatively soon so the commission can address these things. i think it was a good meeting. other commissioners had expressed their interest in this. that is it on that issue. president marshall: thank you very much. if there is nothing else, will take public comment on item three, please. >> reinhardt, director of san francisco open government -- ray hart, director of san francisco

open government. this is on the chief's comments and on commissioners dejesus and kingsley. there is an expression -- none of us is as smart as all of us. getting members of the bay area community, one of the most creative places in the world, involved in the police department offers immense amounts of resources to the officers that otherwise would not have. it gets people in a position where they can participate in government and the actions of the police department, and obviously will foster to some degree of understanding of the community as a difficult job that officers have out on the street, and the constant questions that are raised. at some point, we will also address some of those questions so that people understand those questions are raised and get some sort of an answer. nebraska after the department

makes on those lines which gets people involved and harnesses -- and the effort to the department makes on those lines which its people involved and harnesses their efforts should be charged to continue. one reason i feel so strongly about open government is because i feel getting people involved is the responsibility of all commissions. getting them so they understand, listen, and to split in government, and actually encourage them to -- getting them so they understand, listen, and participate in government, encourages them to get involved, which cannot do anything but foster what the commission is trying to do. president marshall: further public comment on this item? >> my name is barbara gross. i am very proud san franciscan

and resident since my date of birth. i have been proud of the police department. i do not understand why there has been such a move to tear it apart. the think tanks that have come forth from back east, townshend of all places -- there happens to be a state park called town's end outside of their city limits. i believe they know that very well. but the police research forum and public strategies group both come from the same location. this fine city has been in operation since the -- since 1849. the police have been professional all the way down the line. they are not johnny-come- latelies. to have some little town come in and tell these police officers that are dummies i find amusing. thank you. they are a fine department.

by the way, i went out in 1976 and have made an official report. my police start number is still outstanding. i believe it is in the hands of my ex-husband, a civilian station officer. his wife has changed her hair color to mine. i believe you will find it with him. thank you. i know they can do the police investigation, but i am sure he is out of town. i cannot seem to locate him. thank you. president marshall: further public comment? hearing none, would you please call item 4? >> item 4 is approval of the awards committee recommendation. president marshall: in our tab under item four, right? we have a -- i have to find it. here we go.

at the meeting of the awards committee on thursday october 14, the following members of the police department were awarded. do we approve these names for awards? vice president mazzucco: thank you, president marshall. i was present at the awards, as i said earlier, at the medal of valor committee for the recommendations were made and the presentations were made on thursday the 14th. ordinarily, what we do is we go through these, and if there are any questions by the commissioners, we would move to accept his awards and adopt them. the commission has the authority to accept, adopt, revise, or review any of these awards. what is going to happen here is not unprecedented. i am asking that the commission reviews one of the awards. this has been done once before.

i was present. 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 oe