>> how do you vote? president marshall: aye. vice president mazzucco: aye. commissioner dejesus: i respect commissioner marshall and all the hard work he's done and i respect him as a friend, but i disdepree, i think we need gender diversity, and i vote no. schan chan no. commissioner kingsley: no. commissioner slaughter: yes. >> the motion passes 4-3. president marshall: commissioner mazzucco is now president, and i'm the vice president, and we'll make this change right now. vice president mazzucco: as we move forward now, i would like to say that we are commissioners with equal authority, and the story should be how thrend

talented this commission is. you look across this commission, and you have dr. marshall who is a modern day saint whose work in the bay view hunters area -- he has done more for this community than most people can dream of. they you look at the lawyers on this board. starting with commissioner hammer, who is a former police officer, former police officer. an incredible group of lawyers. incredible man with great experience. commissioner kingsley, another lawyer, who is a well known mediator who has brought a lot of talented skills as a mediator to the commission in the short time she's here. commissioner dejesus, former public defender, giffletted, well respected in the community. not always do we agree. we never did as prosecutor and public defender, but she has her heart in the right place, and she also is a native of the

city. commissioner chan, brilliant lawyer. commissioner slaughter who also is a brilliant lawyer and brings a lot to the commission in prior experience in government. the story should be what an honor it is to be on this commission. to be a commissioner with one vote, and what incredible talented group this is. individuals i've been exposed to from president sparks to commissioner onek, it is an honor to serve all of you. when i voted tonight for commissioner chan, i'm sure down the road you will be more than vice president, you will be president of the commission. thank you, everybody, for what you have had to say. president marshall: we will move forward now by taking item number 5. >> item 5 is the discussion of

possible action to initiate a review of the commission rules of order concerning public comment. vice president mazzucco: i will defer this to commissioner kingsley who opened the door about what we should do. at this time, commissioner kingsley, could you chime in on this. kins commissioner kingsley: commissioner slaughter and i have worked on this as a follow-up piece to the retreat. at the retreat we had considerable discussion regarding our relationship to the community as a whole and our response to the communte -- community at meetings at our weekly meetings. and we felt we could improve our relationship with the community perhaps by reconsidering our previous practices at commission meetings. so what you have in front of you is a restatement of the present

commission rules of order regarding response to public comment followed by five considerations that were raised by various commissioners at the retreat. just to get our thought back to where we were at that time, and following that are some tern siffs that i just thought up in reflecting on the comments that were made at the retreat. again, not as concrete alternatives to vote up or down on, but just as a way of opening up the conversation at tonight's meeting in terms of how we want to go forward with a new practice on this matter. >> thank you, commissioner kingsley. commissioner slaughter? commissioner slaughter: i don't have a lot to add. unfortunately not having been at the retreat, i wasn't personally involved in hearing some of the -- in hearing comments. but obviously i've had prior

commission experience, and i know that acommissioners can feel constrained in how they respond to public comment. i know that the public more importantly can deal -- unfortunately, that we are not listening to them or not engaging, and i think adding a statement somewhere along the lines of what we proposed here at the bottom of the page, i think would go a long way, perhaps, to making sure that both the commissioners know that we can respond in a limited way if we need or desire, as well as the public to understand for those who aren't regular attendees of our meetings or viewers of the commission meetings on tv to really understand the process each time. it is a little bit more of a mouthful than we normally provide at the beginning of public comment. but i think we would do well to explain things to folks going

forward. but this is a proposal based mostly on what the rules are trying to reflect in a concise way what the rules are. but it is obviously not meant as a tablet. and we appreciate any suggestions that anybody might have. >> vice president mazzucco: any other suggestions? commissioner hammer: i think the conditions commissioners kingsley and slaughter put forth are good. i think one of the hall marks of our democracy is that any member can walk up look the chief in the eye and ask any question they want. of all the places you could get arrested in, on the other hand, i'm sure it is bewildering to the public that they ask a question about a housing project

and they wander out of the room. our item on the agenda, 6-b, which is the scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings, it seems to me that aour idea to respond, is if something remarkable comes out to the community, that we explain to them, one when the chief gives his report, that commissioners may follow up on your comments if they choose to, they may ask more information at a future meeting, and that secondly we move that 6-b item up starting the agenda so the public can be told if the commission so desires, the next agenda item a commissioner may move for that to be explored at a future meeting. so there is cause and effect closer in time. that we now have theable on a regular item. that's one idea.

vice president mazzucco: commissioner chan? commissioner chan: i look through this and i think a lot of these ideas are excellent. i just have a suggested change. i would change the proposed introduction in the beginning and take out "with the president's permission" because i believe under the police commig's rules you don't need the commission. you can respond if the president requests you to, and you can also respond on your own. so i would just change it up to a positive request of the public you -- upon request of the public you can respond or upon request of the president you can respond. commissioner kingsley: would deleting the words, with the commission present -- commissioner chan: and i second the idea of moving up -- we should probably move up all of item 6 to after public comment.

or we could just know that during the report with might mention the community's concerns. i think the idea is to that a community member does not have to wait around for an hour or two for a response. vice president mazzucco: commissioner hammer snl commissioner hammer: we heard from steve johnson with the p.o.a. and i see lawyers here and officers, i assume some of them are on overtime. chief would it be worth looking at what it costs to have officers here at 10:00 to 11:00 at night. two ideas. would it make sense to have daytime meetings? would that change the cost remarkably? i don't know if other commissions can do this. i'm just putting this idea out. and the other idea is, should we do discipline at the start of our calendar. just an idea. with a more definite or predictable time when the public's business will happen in open session. it must cost a lot to have some

nights thre or four lawyers, five or six police officers, winds sitting around until 5:00 or 6:00 at night. i don't know if that makes sense, chief. >> i think ultimately it is customary here to do it at night. think in other cities, certainly the city of l.a., the police commission meets in the daytime. it would certainly reduce the number of overtime hours that are spent. but you-all have day-time jobs, too, so it is a balance. we are here to serve. i guess, it can be a 12 or 13-hour day sometimes, but we will do whatever the commission suggests. vice president mazzucco: thank you, quheef. commissioner chan: commissioner mazzucco, president mazzucco, just a couple matters.

first, there is always the concern when you have discussion after public comment that you are going to be delving into an unagendaized item, which is one of the reasons why it is generally discouraged that there be discussion after public comment. but it is per misible already, and you wouldn't need to do anything different at all, for a commissioner to ask the director or the chief to follow up on an item, and that can happen after public comment. we obviously don't want to be debating back and forg with a member of the public. that, again, opens up the potential for brown act violations and also may end up giving one speaker more time than is being uniformly allowed to officers. so that's a consideration that already you as the commissioners do have the ability to follow up on public comment with the chief or o.c.c. director. it would also be fine, as

commissioner hammer suggested, to move one of the items on the jepped up. -- agenda up. although, i think part of the reason to have it at the end is there may be things that came up during the chief's report or the meeting, and part of the reason to have it at the end is to allow discussion that can help encompass the entirety of the meeting. >> so we could just move public comment on matters not on the agenda to precede what is on today's agenda, 6-a and 6-b, just move those items there so there is closer proximity. >> that is also an option. that is up to the commission enabout when it wants to have public comment at the meeting. vice president mazzucco: commissioner slaughter? commissioner slaughter: i think our order of the agenda is up to us, in the end, the president, in consultation with the rest of the commission. i don't think there is a

retirement that we do anything in one order or another. i appreciate wanting to get things together, and addressing concerns for attorneys who have disciplinary cases, on the other hand i want to be respective of the public who is coming to do public comment and doesn't want to have to wait too late. we can juggle when we need to juggle, if we want to set some disciplinary items at 8:00 p.m. so that people have certainty about when things are going to be heard. if there becomes a concern. in the meantime, i think we are are mud ling along. i think commissioner chan's useful comments will clarify things for the public and for us, i think. commissioner kingsley: i would like to make a motion that we amend our current practice so

that prior to public comment the president states the preamble as stated here on paragraph a with the deletion of the words "with the president's permission." and to coordinate the scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings to try to have that as well as public comment in close proximity to each other. on the commission agenda. >> is there a second? >> second. comman chan i would -- commissioner commarned chan: i want to confirm you do not mean iteming the rules of order? commissioner kingsley: no. >> without objection, so ordered .

vice president mazzucco: thank you, commissioners kingsley and slaughter. any public complent on this matter? >> commissioner ray hart. i am not surprised that public comment is almost eliminated. i would like to comment on one thing here. if you notice your recommendations, all of your recommendations have to do with what is convenient for you, what is convenient for the police officers involved in the investigate tri hearing. -- investigatory hearing. "we can't keep the lawyers waiting." now that i know there are six members on this commission that are lawyers, i understand exactly what that is. it is convenient if you can also at the same time kill two birds with one stone. let's hold the meel meetings so we don't inconvenience the lawyers and that we can also put the vend agenda -- agenda out so

that the members of the public are discouraged from being here, let alone participating, and just think how quickly it will be. like the time you came back and you finished items 2-3, 4, 5, and 9 in nine minutes. and that was with me speaking for four of those minutes. i can understand why that's convenient for you. gee, if we can get rid of all that nasty public participation and comment, we could go through this agenda like that. i say, oh, well you are just being negative about that. look at this thing. what does it say on this item? discussion and possible action to initiate the rule of order considering public comment. everything on here is what makes public comment convenient for you. the proof of the pudding is in the eating. you have never been designed

that. sunshine ordinance, 67-17. every member of a policy body retains the full constitutional rights of the citizens to comment on the wisdom of its government action including those of a policy body of which he or she is a member. you have never been denied an opportunity. if you look at your own meeting, it is usually i have three minutes, and if somebody wants it, they can sfr an unlimited period of time to address what i have said and refute it or reput it. if that isn't a rigged gail, what is it? the last time i was up leer and i had to plead, don't any of you believe in the constitution? won finally one member asked the deputy city attorney, and they said, well, i think you should let mr. hart continue with his comments.

what does that say? you were more interested in what is convenient for you, and the public be damned. if you think holding a bunch of out-reach thengs is going to override the fact that when a citizen comes to talk to you and you shut them down, you have another thing coming. >> any further comment on this team? hearing none, next item. >> item number 6, routine administrative business. 6-a, commission announcements. vice president mazzucco: commission announcements? 6-b which is scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings. take a look at our agenda items and we can inform the audience what we have on the agenda next week. >> next week is the third sunday of the month. he think commissioner chan

mentioned adding something briefly without trying to crowd it, and it was the issue of -- p -- >> the following meeting is the day before thanksgiving. >> i think the day before thanksgiving i think a lot of the commissioners will be on travel. at this point in time i would ask the commissioners to check their availability for that, but i would be inclined not to have a hearing that evening. commissioner kingsley: if we check the other holidays until the rest of the year, christmas and new years, whatever, have we checked to see which ones fall? >> the 22nd and 29th are the wednesday's until the end of december. vice president mazzucco: we could probably look at those closer in time to see what

commissioners have travel plans. to see if we have a quorum. obviously it is a priority for them to spend time for their families at the holidays, as it is for the officers and the people in the audience. i suggest that we do not have it wednesday. >> agreed. >> just one thing in terms of the closed session on the shooting policy, you mentioned two weeks out, which is the thanksgiving week, so perhaps the week after that, commissioner, president mazzucco, so we have it in there so the city attorney can start to look at it and give it direction. vice president mazzucco: i agree. that's a big concern of ours. >> i will be prepared for that meeting, but i need to make sure i find an appropriate basis for closed session. there may be that there may not

be an appropriate basis for closed session, and in that case i will work with the commission secretary and the president to find a way to -- the commission. commissioner hammer: i think it is important we clarified those policies. >> i think commissioner dejesus has a matter. commissioner dejesus: we talked about gao 5.10 -- i think it is 5.7. i have confirmed that my speakers are available on december 8th. >> i would ask that be calendared for the eighth. in the meantime, that they have a working group, and i think

commissioner mazzucco and i -- we're going to -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt. go ahead. >> i think the plan is we have this matter set for the th or 8th for public comment on a hearing. i don't think at that point in time it would be an action item. you want to present your speakers as part of the planning process? i spoke to the chief about this. i thought the general order does need to be revised. stemming from everything, we all agree there should be changes, if we can put religion in there with reference to profiling. but there are other issues that involve national security, and there is issues about disclosure and security clearances. that will not be an action item, i think that's clear.

commissioner dejesus: what was happening was i was asking national item stay on initially. i would actually like to schedule with an action item. i don't know what the issues are. i don't know what they are. i think it should be an action item. vice president mazzucco: my quick review of if, it is going to take us a lot of work to get us there, which we are willing to do, but i think the most important part is to have your speaker submit that too -- i submit that to the chief. where are you with your preparation and how do you see

this project? is it something you see as action by december 8th? >> we have haven't done -- we haven't done more than have an additional -- initial meeting on this. 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