apply for a job so we need to come up with a process that recognizes the parameters that mayor lee will be our mayor for the next 11 months and mayor lee would make the selection for chief. ultimately our goal would be to have a chief that is so strong that our next mayor would say gosh, i shouldn't have to do anything. i should keep the next chief. but who know what is the mex mayor is going -- next mayor is going to want? i don't see that there is going to be a lot of outside interest because over the program terse so i would like to especially open it up for discussion. it is very important to have community input and we had it and we will continue to get it from our commission meetings. dr. marshall who deeply invested in this last time. dr. marshall?

vice president marshall: i just want to jnd score the political realities because it may be that whoever is selected, let me tell you the truth. we may be doing this again. you know, in a year. because one of the things we wanted to do, we couldn't do when we did get going was give the chief a contract so that he doesn't necessarily serve it through -- you know, we have a contract, we could pick somebody and whenever we pick them, we got to do the whole thing a year. look around. these are important. someone who would apply is faced with that. i just want to be sure everybody understands what we're going into here. it's, you know, it is very different than we were before. the person i would say was at least a little more secure,

whoever it is that got the job. so it is under those challenges and realities and constraintsed that we have -- constraints that we have to be in this position one more time. >> commissioner hammer? commissioner hammer: my observation is i don't propose we redo all the great work you guys did but i think it is important in this process we set up a few public forums in different areas of the city so people can come forward and speak out. we just did have a chief for 18 months. we all worked close with him. people in the community have something to say about it, things they think can be improved upon. i'm proposing a very limited public forum where people can be able to come speak about what they want. the second part i would like to hear, a forum for officer to

see what they are looking for in terms of the direction of partner. we talked about some mechanism in relative rapid order to let people weigh in how they feel about their city. >> thank you. commissioner dejesus? commissioner dejesus: we need a candidate that will meet the criteria to serve the community as a whole. how we do that, i know we have some criteria from the last time and it was relatively just a short period. but i think if we're going to -- when we look at the criteria that we are going to agree on, it is incumbent upon us not to fit the criteria to a preordained individual but to be completely objective in our creation of and assessment to

have criteria. that is something i really want to stress. in other words, the process must be articulated or adhered to, transparent to the extent that it can be transparent, leadership, to determine the criteria rather than a particular or preordained individual. we need to point out that four members of this commission actually have not gone through this process. have not heard the community concerns. it is one thing to read it and another to hear it directly from the community. so i do agree with commissioner hammer, even though you want to be expedient, i think there is an opportunity and time for this body to go as a new body with four new commissioners to the community and target certain areas and to listen to them because i think there was really an eye opener and we went to the rank and file and command staffing. we were really thorough and we don't have to do it to that extent but i think the new

commissioner should see the concerns from the rank and file and the command staff and move forward so that we can get criteria and it may be the criteria that we already have. we may want to add that we have had a year and a half experience and it will be interesting hozz how the public evaluates that. -- to see how the public evaluates that. i disagree with commissioner hammer on that. it really is imperative that no member of this body speak to the press or the community as a voice for the whole commission until we get thoroughly engaged in the process and we decide the criteria as a body. once we have come to an agreement on the criteria then i think we need to move forward as a unified body to vet the candidates. i do have an idea. i want to throat that out -- throw that out there.

we have a list and i think one of the things we can do rather than just open the process up and start this in a really hurried and frenzied kind of way is to look at the list we already have and determine who who is the candidate from that list that we want to proffer from the mayor. it is still there. it is still fresh. i want to throw that out rather than opening the whole thing up. but if we do open it up, i just want to make sure that it is a fair process and that everyone who comes forward gets evaluated on his or her qualifications to run the department and fulfill the criteria that we set forth rather than the type of popularity or preordained individual. those are my thoughts. >> thank you, commissioner kingsley. >> i would like to support what commissioners hammer and dejesus said in terms of getting feed back from the public.

i think we have community boards and regular monthly meetings set up in the various stations for community board meetings and what we may want to do is just put that on the agenda on those meetings and have a rotation among commissioners to be at those meetings to be able to ask similar questions of all the public at the various meetings and report back to the commission as to you know, our finding. the feed back from the community. >> thank you commissioner slaughter. thank you, president mazzucco. i agree that we need to -- i guess i'm confused listening to commissioner hammer and commissioner dejesus. on one hand i hear people endorsing the process the commission went through a year and a half ago and not wanting

to redo the work that has recently been done, but on the other hand, wanting and meeting. i agree we need input from the public in figuring out the best way to get it in an efficient manner. commissioners mazzucco and hammer, i met with the mayor shortly before our meeting last week and he expressed tremendous confidence in the commission's ability to do this but he did suggests he wanted a thoughtful process. he wanted an expeditious process and i agree with that. i have got no answer, but i'm concerned about opening up -- on the one hand, i very much want to hear and agree and figure out a way to get public comment efficiently and quickly, but i get concerned when we talk about setting up a process that could take a number of months and maybe that is inevitable that it is going to have to take a number of

months, but as commissioner marshall said, we're dealing with some stark realities. we have only a certain number of months before we have a new mayor. i wouldn't like to have to spend three or four months doing this process and four or five months being right back at ground zero. i don't offer any unfortunately useful solutions but just my observations listening to the conversation so far. >> commissioner hammer, and just to clarify what i was suggesting isen an expeditious process. not what we did last time but a much more condensed one. i think we would proceed here at city hall. what i'm ening is those forums relatively rapidly, maybe not 10 of them but maybe three so people felt they could come and speak openly and talk about the

police department. a condensed one but so that people have a chance to speak out. >> thank you. commissioner marshall? vice president marshall: there is a couple of things in my mind. in my mind, we would build on what we have already done. if i would go out there, if we had already compiled a list, i wouldn't compile a whole new list. i would say is there something on here, i would certainly build on the work that we have already done, but i do think it is important, i don't want this thing to be open-ended. i think at some point we want this done in x number of time. if it is two months, fine. eight months, fine. i don't really care, but we have to set a time frame or else we will just blowing in the wind here. i think everything back from -- then we can see how much we can accomplish in, you know, we're going to have a timeline, which

is what you usually do when we do these things. i think we have to figure out first when we would like to have this done by and then we can build on all the other processes that it takes to get it. but i do think we should use the existing documents and work and profiles that we have, you know, that we have already accumulated in the prior search, because it wasn't that long ago. i wouldn't want to start all over again. >> thank you. commissioner dejesus? commissioner dejesus: i disagree. i don't think we need to do it in five days or eight days. i think we can do it in 30 days. i think it is important for commissioners who have not gone through process to meet with the community and get some input. that's step number one. step number two, then i guess for criteria, we got to decide whether we're going to keep the list that we have only or keep the list and open up to

applications. i think we really need to talk about how we want to do that. i think we should build on what we already have and candidates we have already vetted that are already kind of available to us. vice president marshall: that's not what i was talking about when i said build on before. commissioner dejesus: see if we want to select from our list because if you're only talking a few months. if you're only talking a few months, we don't know who the next chief is going to be, i'm not really sure it is -- i don't know, open it up and try to doit in five days and interview somebody really quickly, i don't see that as really thoughtful. >> it is impossible for us to do in five days because over the notice requirements i see lieutenant riley about to have a heart attack. i think that is impossible. i think we need to hear from the community. i like commissioner hammer's idea and your idea but confused about your idea just going with

the previous list. commissioner dejesus: when you look it a, we can decide how we want it. i am just pointing out we have a list. >> we need to know who is interested in the job. commissioner slaughter? commissioner slaughter: i appreciate the idea that we had, the prior list. it seems like the use over the prior names that were vetted, while potentially useful doesn't eliminate the idea that the commissioners amongst us were not here to vet them. more over, we can figure out pretty quickly but we don't know if those candidates remain interested in a very different landscape now than it did a year and a half ago. so we would be -- i'm sure that whenever we put out the word that says please get your an -- applications in by such and such a date, everyone knows

this job is open. we'll get the names of people that are interested and people that are interested with their eyes wide open given the political realities that we face. i don't think anybody is suggesting we do in this in three days or five days. i like the idea, commissioner hammer of a targeted number of community meetings in a short period of time, in a few weeks or month period of time, set up a few meetings i think is critical that we get the input from the command staff and the rank and file and then proceed to accept applications and interview candidates. i don't necessarily think -- i don't think these things have to proceed -- we can set up a timetable that says we want the applications in on such and such a date and we can be having our meetings while we deal -- in fact, i feel pretty strongly we don't want to leave -- leave that decision for later. i hope we come out tonight with

we want applications in by such and such a day and during that time frame we'll get out and do the meetings that we do. president mazzucco; thank you. i would like to have an agenda by the time we leave tonight then we can move on the the next issue about the qualifications. we do need to have the time frame outlined tonight so there is clarity for the men and women of the police department and for the citizens of san francisco. >> if we could agree upon ourselfs the date by the application would be returned and and when this process could be completed. i'll throw out a date and somebody can suggest a different one. something like two movepts out or 2 1/2 months out, we work hard, i'll propose april 15. we can move rapidly to hear from the community, to hear from our officers. i would think that we would

have applications due in two weeks or so. i think that is enough. again, as commissioner slaughter said probably every police professional in the country knows this job is open. and then i think they are on parallel tracks that we begin listening to the community. all san franciscans know this is a big choice that will affect our lives. those who want to speak out should. by the time we do that, we'll have our list of candidates and begin our interviews. he put great faith in us that we will do this job well and i think we will. i think in partnership we should move expeditiously and i think it is a good aspiration. president mazzucco; commissioner chan? commissioner chan: i think we're on the same waive length. i sate february 4 as the date, a friday.

and the date that you set up, a date for us to make a recommendation to the mayor. >> it was. >> i would be happy to help with the cantonese community speaking meetings. i really want to push us to move into public comment and suspend our discussion because i notice everyone here and i want to make sure we can hear from everyone. we can come back to this discussion. president mazzucco; commissioner slaughter? commissioner slaughter: i think applications in two weeks makes sense. i think that if we give ourselves, i guess, if key for me on the april 1 day, personally i would like to see if we can get a name to the mayor a couple weeks earlier than 1 and again, i think if we as a commission devote ourselves to time, we're only talking three or four community meetings, i think we can certainly get that done in the february time frame that we

could hopefully shoot for it and have the first couple of weeks of march to do interviews and we could shoot for a mid march date to get it to the mayor. president mazzucco; commissioner dejesus? commissioner dejesus: i just wanted -- these dates are fine except for when are we going to get the application? there is an application here that we need to get printed and mail and get out. i guess we need to have a deadline when that is out and i think it should be two weeks from the date that that is published. i don't think it is fair to say two weeks and we haven't put the criteria out and it has not been published or given to anybody. it is pretty detailed. you need to factor that in. i agree with commissioner hammer. i think april 1 sounds reasonable. there is a lot of coordination with our calendar and the community. that's just my two cents.

president mazzucco; dr. marshall. commissioners can understand you're wanting to get the public in but i want us to take the -- they got to know what we're thinking here. if we have to take a little more time to firm it up the best we can tonight, i would like to do that. i would like, you know, we have got some dates now. they kind of know what we are thinking. they haven't voted on anything but some beginning and end dates, a little bit of -- about the process. i just want to underscore. i just want to -- no matter what, the poovel candidates is going to be limited -- pool of candidates is going to be limited. if there is somebody wonderful out there, you know, who knows that -- i could be gone no matter if i'm the greatest cop who ever lived, who may be here or someplace else, so if we

don't get a ,000 applications, remember, it has nothing to do with the commission. it has to do with the realities of things. we're moving through with the process that we can best carve out despite that. >> i agree with dr. marshall having gone through this process before. >> i think we go to april 1, commissioner hammer and we're basically inviting people to apply for an eight-month job. we give the mayor time to do his vetting and interviews. the last time the mayor interviewed the three candidates and it probably took him about a week or two before he came up with an answer and you throw that into of into it and we're looking at a 7 1/2 month job. commissioner davis made a great point. we have to put out the job posting. what we need to do, unofficially tonight, we should tell people that, you know, we're opening up, there is obviously a job opening near

san francisco to be police chief. get your resumes and cover letter ready. it is pretty standard for any job and then we can find job posting but the reality is there are already people interested in the job, showing their interest. in fact, we have already received one application. there is no mystery here. here is my suggestion given the parameters again, i know, we really do need to go out into the community. i suggest that today is wednesday, january 19. i would like to see us have -- i propose -- please break out your calendars that we have applications to the commission two weeks today by wednesday, february 2. and in the -- i would like to pick three commissioners who are willing to put together a revised posting that we did last time. commissioner dejesus, commissioner chan.

>> the ones who didn't do it last time. >> you want it, you can have it. >> ok. >> we might as well do that. let's make it pefrl clear the job is open and we're accepting applications. i would ideally like to see us give mayor some time so that he can spend some time vetting the candidates. april 1, i just don't like that day for a lot of reasons. so what i would like to do, i think we can do this. i think reasonably. we're going to have to dedicate time like we did last time. it became a full time job for the commissioners in. i spent more time with the commission than my family last time doing interviews. we get it written on february 2. i suggest between that time, i would like to see us gets this to the mayor by tuesday, march 15. it is two less weeks than what commissioner hammer is looking

for. commissioner hammer: you're ambitious. >> i amleto beneficiaries but given the -- aam ambitious. but given program terse. >> if we can get this written one out by the 21st, two weeks from the 21st is february 4. that is my only concern. if you don't get the written one out on the 21st you're given a week and two days, three days to get the application in. it is less than two weeks. that's all i'm saying. if we get the -- if we can commit to get the written one out by the 21st, two weeks from that is the fourth. >> what we could do is meet this week. let's meet on tuesday and go over and do the formal written announcement next wednesday night. we can announce it wednesday night. let's do that, wednesday. points of inquiry, mr. president?

is there a period of time we have to leave the application open? >> i don't know that there is a legal time you have to have it open. it sounds like one idea you're considering is to present to the commission a proposed job announcement for approval next week. usually i believe the department of human resources does that for the city so they would work with the police department's h.r. division to make hurry that the announcement was make sure that the announcement was properly posted. >> what is the time requirement for the city in terms of how long a posting needs to take place? is there a minimum time? >> i'm not aware that there is a minimum time. i would have to go back and look at the civil service rules and h.r. procedures. i can follow it up with whoever is going to be the point person on the commission. i don't believe there is a

mandates period of time, however. this is commission's process so you get to decide here. >> yes. so we're -- what we'll do with is -- we have our expert in the back of the room. we'll help lieutenant fall biwith this. and lieutenant riley. he's hiding back there. for the record, lieutenant riley has been assigned to us to help with this process. the question is what date do we want to give for applications to be in and then the interviews will follow thereafter. lieutenant riley, i don't mind you asking what is the posting requirement we need to set up for a commission hearing that will be in closed session obviously to interview the applicants? >> unaccustomed as i am to addressing the commission -- [laughter] commissioner.

if you are -- if we're going hold a meeting of the commissioners and an official commissioner meeting here at city hall, of course we need 72 hours notice and any location away from city hall, we need 15 days notice. that would include the hall of justice. >> thank you. vice president marshall: go ahead. you want to finish? >> stay there, lieutenant riley. don't go anywhere, please. >> if i can say this, maybe the thing i remember that impacted me more than anything about the previous search, was as much as everyone tried to find out who they were, where they were, this commission was unflappable. i got to say that. even i was surprised. the press was wrong. everybody was wrong. and a lot of that, our meetings

were held in places, we're in bunkers and places like that. all of those things have to be taking into consideration. i actually think it is going to be more difficult this time. that's the way i feel. so i -- i think it is going to be a much -- you know, us being quiet about everything we do, it is going to be really important here. so let's just keep all of that in mind in this and i just hope that we can do as well as we did last time. all the things they thought we were doing turned out to be not. i think that is really the most important thing that we're doing here. >> can i just address that? the timeline issue? i believe obviously, before the commission goes into closed session, it needs to have an open session meeting and i believe one of the ways that the commission addressed the issue of protecting the confidentiality over the

applicants and also meeting its public meeting requirements. the meeting here at city hall, do the open session here at city hall and then go into closed session and move to an alternate location. there was a little bit of road tripping involved in the interview process but that would mean that you would be able to do the 72-hour notice because the meeting would be convened here but then you would travel once you went into closed session to an alternate location and then we come back into open session again at this location. it is a little bit of traveling and some inconvenience but it dust protect the confidentiality of the process. -- does protect the confidentiality of the process. >> commissioner hammer? commissioner hammer: i put april 1 to get the conversation going. if my fellow commissioners are equally ambitious, i'm happy to

join the aspiration of march 15. if we have to move it back two weeks, then we do. i question the timing to revise this previous job listing, which is pretty darn good, except probably the dates and numbers are wrong. the time 14 case from the date you folks publish it. that is my suggestion. that will be -- the date once you do put it out. as soon as they come in, we start the interviews, i think we should talk about a bit tonight but i really want to get to folks who have been waiting here so long. we should set up the meetings in san francisco to hear from the people. >>