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 we've come upon some money here. [laughing] president marshall: two in a row. any questions on this? >> i move to accept. president marshall: mr. hammer? commissioner hammer: if no one is prepared to go into this, i just have a couple quick questions. it is now deputy chief? >> no, no, no. commissioner hammer: i apologize. i have been working with assistant chief schmidt in terms of trying to update the d.g.o.'s, but the last time we talked at the tender loin meeting, we weren't clear how old the untested case is. is there anything about how many backlocke log cases there are now? >> i don't have a timeline now in terms of the oldest case to

be tested, but according to our information, there are no backlog cases except for i have been told this evening, there are approximately 20 backlog burglary cases that are waiting to be assigned. the homicide cases and sexual assault cases have been assigned internally or contracted out. commissioner hammer: i don't want to debate the term, but if something is back logged and it is assigned but still back logged six months, that in my mind is still back logged. do we know how many of those cases are -- >> i don't have that information. commissioner hammer: that's fine. but if you know, and i'm excited about this, because i actually filed some cold cases, homicides that were 25 years old when i was a d.a. do we know how many old homicides we have not yet gone

through? how big is the pool of number of old homicide cases? >> we do not have that number, but this grant is very excited, by the way, it is great for the police department, great for the city. so we're going to take 100 cases and we're going to look at them, homicide, cold cases, and sexual assault cases that have d.n.a. evidence and the potential for solveability and we're going to move forward on them. the homicide cases range from the 1960's to the 1980's. the sexual assault cases, there is a sat ute of limitations for 10 years. so we'll go back to 2001 and look at those cases. that's what this is about. >> so -- commissioner hammer: so the public understands, it is often the case that the assault cases didn't get solved because there is new technology, and is this a second and third pass through of

the evidence? >> not to get technical about the d.n.a., because i'm not an expert in d.n.a., but we're going to upgrate them to a 13 marker profile, so it can be uploaded into the data base, but we're going to look at the d.n.a. used and if we have plenty of cases that apply to this grant, we're going to move forward on this as quickly as possible. commissioner hammer: thank you very much. president marshall: we'll take apublic comment on item 4. public comment on this item? hearing none, then commissioners, i think we had a motion to approve by commissioner mazzucco. i need a second. commissioner dejesus: second. president marshall: without objection, so awarded. item number 6, please. more money. >> item number 6, discussion and possible action to recommend that the board of supervisors approve a resolution authorizing

the police department to receipt actively accept and expend a grant totaling $320,274 from the u.s. department of justice/national institute of justice for the fy-2010 forensic d.n.a. backlog reduction program , action only. >> motion. commissioner dejesus: second. president marshall: public comment? hearing now public comment, then without objection the motion is approved. thank you. let's move to item number 7. >> item 7. discussion of possible action to recommend that the board of supervisors approve a resolution authorsizing the police department to receipt actively accept and expend a $750,000 grant from the u.s. department of justice/office of community oriented policing for fiscal

year 2010 technology program for a gunshot location system. commissioner dejesus: motion to approve. >> just briefly, if we could have a very, very brief splanks explanation of -- brief explanation of what the shots fired system is? >> good evening, commissioners. we currently have 3.3 square miles of the city. 1.3 in the bay view, one in the mission, and one in the northern district. those areas are currently opragal. we are currently working on a grant that was accepted last year in the amount of $1 million to expand the system further by four squares miles. we should see that system operational in the sunnydale valley very soon.

in fact, we are installing a work station at ingelside station tomorrow, so that is one component of the notice. this grant would allow for us to expand the shots fired system in addition to two square miles. what we're looking at is historiccally there is roughly a 15-square-mile area of the city where we have seen the majority of gunfire. additionally as we look at population projection primarily in the southeast corner of the city, we need to plan for the future. so as we are incremently building this system, that's exactly what we're doing. >> what is the shots-fired system? >> it is actually built on the same technology that identifies the epicenter of an earthquake. sound travels at a consistent speed. so when you place the markers at different locations, and that sound hits those markers at different times, to be able to

then identify the location where the sound emanated from. this in particular is from a company called shots fired incorporated. they are located in mountain view. effectively the system listens for gunfire. it alerts the officers to listen for the presence of it. the timein which that alert takes place is roughly 10 seconds. the difference in the response is monumental. when we rely upon citizens, generally i merses the shots fired system, you see a difference in the shots fired time. that's from the actual event to the time that the officers arrive on the scene. further more, when there is a citizen call for service connected with the shots fired system, we're only seeing 11% representation from the system, so the system is picking up substantially more activity than

if we had relied solely on citizens to report incidents of gunfire. >> the epicenter screen or wherever it is at monitors a screen, and then the signal is sent out to officers that are out in the community or does each officer in that area have something portable that they pick up the signal with? right now our dispatch officers actually see the alert as they come in. there is a work station within the lieutenant's office or in the process of getting the sfim system mobile so that it will go into a selected number of patrol vehicles, primarily supervisors who effectively can direct its response according to the type

of incident that's developing. so currently, it is -- the dispatch process is the same. dispatch officer will receive the information, send it over the police radio, or the lieutenant at the given station will direct, and the lieutenant and the dispatcher both have google type maps where they can actually see building lines and streets and so forth and then direct the officers accordingly. once the mobile units are active, then you have a much more greater ability of the sforse and argents in the field to actually direct based upon point geography that they are quite familiar with. >> terrific. thank you very much for answering the question. >> thank you. good to see you again. president marshall: any public comment on this team before we vote? hearing none.

we have a motion to approve and a second. any seconds? so ordered. thank you. lieutenant, item number 8. we're getting there, mr. johnson. oh, he left. he couldn't stand it. >> item 8 is routine administrative business, routine announce lts, and scheduling ever items identified for consideration at future commission meetings. president marshall: any announcements? hearing none, ok. then we'll go to b. scheduling ever items identified for consideration at future meet ings. we put a skeleton list together of disciplinary items to be considered in the next couple months, i think it was. and that would give us an idea about -- i think lieutenant was going to try to put anything else on there that had been

suggested mple so we're looking forward to that, because we don't have it yet. >> commissioner mazzucco. >> lieutenant reilly, do we have -- commissioner dejesus, i think we're discussing general order 8.0. i was going to ask you, is it possible we can continue that for another week? the chief wants to be here for the presentation, and he wants to be here wednesday night. >> and they are not available to follow. >> maybe two weeks down the road. the chief needs to be here. >> i need to -- i want to make sure they are available. do you have any idea? >> i'm not sure. i'm not sure. commissioner dejesus: why don't we talk off line. >> we'll take that off calendar for next week. so i doubt that -- i would ask that that be taken off calendar.

do we need to do a motion? thank you. i appreciate that. president marshall: anything else? all right. public comment on item number 8. none. item number 9. >> item number 9 is public comment on all matters pertaining to closed session which is item 11 below, including public comment on whether to go into closed session. president marshall: comment on item number 9? none. item number 10. >> item 10 is a vote on whether to moled hold a closed session. president marshall: without objection, so ordered. we will move into closed session, and we will stay in this room, and we'll take the items in order unless the commissioners say otherwise.

we'll take a break for five minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the commission is going into closed session. we ask that the room be cleared. >> commission is returning to

open session at 9:36 p.m.. >> would you please call item number 12th. >> this is a vote to disclose or not disclose any items that were discussed in closed session. >> is there any public comment? >> know. >> item 13 is adjournment. >> some moved and seconded. >> we will adjourn in favor of the giants' victory.