i apologize. >> how much time is left on his comment? >> 1:10. >> you have one minute and 10 seconds. >> to respond to that i understand undercover tactics are used to deter and, you know, shall we say solve crime in the city and county of san francisco. however, especially in the case of the car program, i can think of many conceivable alternate reasons why someone may enter that car than i find it to be very unclear whether or not you ask taken just on the basis of the entry of that car the intent to steal the vehicle. and i find that to be a huge complication, especially given the severity of the charges the person would face being arrested under such circumstances. i also find the camera thing, despite the fact i know they have to sign waivers and whatnot for broadcast, i find that to be a violation of

people's privacy. >> thank you. any further public comment. chief, go ahead. >> i would be willing to -- we kept the statistics of these incidents we had, how many filings through the district stone's -- attorney's office, i'll bring those stats. >> bring that next week. thank you. >> director of san francisco, open government. i had initially -- i am going to make a comment about another item under this, but hearing the comments that were just exchanged between the chief and member of the public, i would be concerned for the simple fact that twice in my life i have found people's wallets and i picked those wallets up, there were cash, credit cards and other things and what i did was in one case is turn it over to a police officer and the second time, i contacted the person directly and told them i had the wallet and asked them what they would like to do to arrange. now i'm seeing this program, do i have to worry sitting in the city of san francisco if i as

an honest citizen find somebody's wallet and pick it up i'm going to have some officer then slapping the cuffs on me saying ah, you stole somebody's wallet. so i think the questions that were raised by the previous speakers really do take some consideration and have to be done very, very carefully and i'm sure that you will do that. the second thing i would like to address is the priority list, commission priority list. i am on your mailing list for information for these things and i saw nothing in tonight's packet which showed this priority list in any way. so members of the public, we're not given an opportunity, you're talking about something we have no way of knowing what it is you're talking about. now, i'm familiar with it because i made a sunshine request of the police department, got the minutes from the meeting that you attended, your recreate, where this list was, i believe initially made up. so i am familiar. but i think in the interest of

sunshine and the brown act that in cases like this where you're going to be discussing sites, these items should be part of the packet that's provided for the public and sent out in the mailing list so that those of us who want to participate in and really have an effective input to your system are given this item, the list to not have to sit here and go, what are they talking about? because i have a feel most members of the public who would come in here at this point wouldn't know what your priority list is, wouldn't know what's on it and really would have in that effect no way of really meaningfully participating in this item. >> commissioner kingsley? >> mr. hart? thank you for your comment. i think that there's a great deal of merit to that comment and we'll try to do better in the future. perhaps better coordination in terms of having the document prepared and coordinating it with when the packets go out to all the commissioners. i do believe there are extra copies for any members of the

public that wish to have them, that they are over on the table. but we'll try to do better in the future. and thank you for your comments. >> i'll review it again, i make mistakes like anybody else but i didn't see it in reviewing the packet, in what i received and thought it was worth a mention. >> if it's any consolation, it's not in our packet either. any further comment? hearing none -- line item number -- are we -- briefly, commissioner dejesus asked we reopen line item 5-c, scheduling of items. is that appropriate to reopen an item? >> it was five. all i want to do -- [inaudible] >> reopen 5-b for commissioner dejesus. >> i just wasn't here last week when we were talking about scheduling further items for the agenda and i understand that -- i wasn't sure if you

scheduled a taser hearing or -- >> no. go ahead, commissioner slaughter. >> my recollection is the taser hearing has been scheduled for february 9. >> i can't make february 9 and it's a real important issue i want to be a part of. i'm starting a trial the end of the month and i just know i can't make february 9 and i wonder if i could put that out somewhat so i can be present. i will be in february, or the first of march would be a better date for me.

there is also community members who have been calling, interested in making presentations and i like to coordinate that. i think a lot more goes into it than just setting a hearing. >> the tasers and the mental health issues are two separate issues. they will not be discussed on the same evening. i have made it perfectly clear and i think the other members have agreed with me that tazers are not being discussed as a method or dealing with people with mental health issues. people that are dangerous, people that are under the influence of narcotics. with reference to that ninth hearing, we scheduled that because it became somewhat of a priority. would you like to add anything to that? >> the suggestion that we add

tasers and we add finding candidates for the chief's position as two items not prioritizing them tonight, of course, but adding them and any other matters that the commission would like to add on top of this priority list as matters to be considered for prioritizing in two weeks when we address that. because tasers are not on this list. it is not on the list. are there any other items that we want to add as matters for the priority list? >> well, here is my suggestion. i mean, it is an issue i think we need to deal with. this commission has to get this front of this issue and make a decision as to whether or not we are going to start the process. i understand you have a trial scheduled. i would like to keep this matter on calendar for the ninth and play it by ear.

knowing how trials go. >> i also have committee members who want to have meetings and i just don't think it is enough time to do all of that. >> we basically would like to have a presentation that evening and we would like to do it to get this thing addressed sooner than later. >> when you say you can have a presentation, i guess we should talk about what that entails. as i said, community members want to make a presentation and they want to be a part of that. when you say you are going to have a hearing -- >> absolutely, as we discussed last week, the hearing would be a presentation by the department and a presentation -- input from the community and presentation from those who think maybe tasers are not a good idea. it is going to be a full blown evening dedicated to the issue of tasers. i think we would be remis. i know you're very involved in

this. i would like to keep this issue open. if this is that important, other issues may take over but for now, i prefer that we leave it on the calendar. >> i have something else. i need clarification. our former chief of police insisted if we had a taser, shootings would not have happened. for me, it is intertwined with the mental health issue. i think that is how he has been selling it on this commission, that he is going to protect the mental health position. that's how it has been sold. it is hypocritical. we have to have them both together. i have to know what the parameters are stand people come from the mental health community, and talk about why they don't want tasers for their community, are they going to be cut off at the knees?

that was all that i had understood that we did have february 9 as a date set for -- with the vote? that vote or the -- the packet of information was to come on the week before, on the2nd and we have the ninth open for the hearing as well as the vote, originally. >> that's correct. >> commissioner slaughter? commissioner slaughter: i would hope that we keep it on for the ninth. president mazzucco and believe that when we decided to put this on, that the husband is, mental health issues and taser husband is are -- issues are separate. the pros and cons. whether to -- the department commission ought to have some program involved should be

considered separately from how the department and the commission ought to approach making sure that our force is appropriately and best trained to deal with mental health issues. but commissioner dejesus, i don't think you were suggesting if somebody were to raise mental health issues they would be cut off. we welcome, we need, we absolutely must have as broad a public comment and input into the question of whether to introduce tasers as one of the weapons in the arsenal of the course and obviously, every affected portion of our community should be permitted to present and hope and expect and that is certainly what was discussed at our meeting last week when we set it for february 9. i do as commissioner chan and commissioner moos ukeo consider

it as sprt -- mazzucco consider it as separate. it obviously doesn't mean that somebody who has input and believes that we have relevant policies to consider would be precluded from offering that to us. quite the contrary, i hope. i hope that everyone -- >> i said it very quickly at a community meeting. what i was trying to say about tasers and mental health being separate is i was trying to clarify that the subcommittee that we were discussing, the focus was not tasers but mental health training and looking at what was happening in memphis and looking at their models. how the address that issue, but i have to say the discussions about tasers has been very much mixed up with the mental health issue and the outgoing chief did

mix those two up and connected those two particularly with the two shootings, they were both mentally ill people. those two have been linked by the outgoing leader of the department and we do need to talk about mental health and how to address that snu a proper way. i am -- issue in a proper way. i'm concerned that the issue is scheduled before a mental health action. everyone pretty strongly agreed that mental health is a strong priority and that is not how we are scheduling things. i think we should respect her schedule and i think we need to schedule our work around what should be our priorities. >> commissioner dejesus? >> i just want to say to the commission, thank you. i'm pleased to hear that the

mental health advocates would be welcome to the commission. also some of the people who have -- the mentally ill also have language access issues. that community is very concerned. they want to come together and put a cohesive program together so that we're not here all night long so that we're here and get highlights of it. i'm a little dismayed at the courtesy to the community and myself. that is fine. i'll keep that in mind next time people ask for things. we'll dry our best and go forward on the 9th but it would be better if it was organized and efficient and had a presentation that gets the communities' points across rather than having it rushed like this. i am dismayed that you guys can't put it over. that's fine but there are other community areas that are going to be touched upon when it comes

to the talk about tasers. >> commissioner kingsley? commissioner king kingsley: i wonder if we're going to hear about the mental health training and getting clarification around the type of training that is, in fact, happening around the city and details around this, whether that won't help some of your concerns in terms of that there is departmental energy, time, and that that is a priority with the department, working on mental health training for officers that will be coming next week. so we will have that to take into consideration. i guess the other comment, and wasn't here, part of the commission, when we last took a vote in connection with tasers, but have been trying to you

know, get my arms around this issue since it last came up last week and moving full ahead to be prepared for our discussion as a commission, as a whole, but i did take note to one example in the newspaper, the chronicle where a parent of an autoistic child wrote in indicating that -- autistic child wrote in indicating that they would prefer that their autistic child, not having been shot with a firearm, that as a parent of an autistic child, they would have welcomed one of the tools in the arsenal for police officers or police enforcement to be a taser and so i'm hearing, as well as reading the other incidents where that has been an issue going in the other direction. so i guess there are a couple a

couple -- there are different sides of the mental health issue. it is going to come up in the discussion of tasers and it seems to -- cut both ways. so it is an important discussion to be had. >> here is my take on it. i was advised by the city attorney that we're moving astray from what the intention of reopening 5 b. we're moving into what is going to be a passionate debate. that's why we set this matter for february 9. we want to get into this debate. there is so much that comes from many different perspectives. with that in mind, we'll keep it >> i also worry about the community. >> we did this last month to give the -- last week, to give the community over a month to prepare for this. we think that was sufficient. the reason why we expedite, at the meeting, we decided to expedite this issue, we were going to schedule it earlier but

we put it over to give people time to prepare. when you have the police chief, who is a professional, make a statement that these two incidents probably could have been avoided if we had tasers, putting aside the mental health issue. everybody is passionate about it. there is passionate debate. for now let's leave it open for the 9th. let's see if we can get this done the 9th. we owe it to the police officers and the community. do we need to reopen this to public comment regarding what has been said? i will just briefly, if you don't mind. >> the only -- my only child was killed nine years ago.

he was shot 48 times by nine officers, actually eight, one didn't shoot and reporters are constantly asking me would you have preferred that the police would have used a taser on him? they would have not used a taser. they would have used probably seven or eight tasers. it doesn't make a difference to me. my son was shot to death or he probably would have been shocked to death. it is a very passionate debate, but give reasonable time for the committee and the grieving families of loved ones who have been killed by law enforcement to be -- a vital part of the process when it comes to the priorities. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> if we can now move to line item number six. >> it is public comment on all

matters pertaining to item 8 and public comment on whether to go into closed session. >> i would like to point out something regarding this matter. you have come into session every night for about an hour, hour and a half, maybe two hours and you're open to the public and then you go into closed session, two, three, four hours and i don't think it is unfair to really look at your priorities and say well, it looks to me as a member of the public that your priority is being a judicial body and hearing complaints against police department and you spend more time, in fact, i would say the majority of your time, hearing those cases and dealing with those cases than you do everything else combined and i think that is problem and i think it is also a concern because over the reports that have been coming out lately from the aufers of citizen complaints showing fewer and fewer cases this year than last year being resolved in favor of the

complaintant to the point that we were talking about less than 1% actually being supported and all the rest not. i have a funny feeling that the reason you're seeing more and more and the trend is going to continue, cases in private is because more and more people are realizing the o.c.c. process is really kind of pointless. i mean, being in a situation as i i was, i was told well, if you want to go into this other program, we'll trining have a meeting between you and the officer where you can have a discussion and initially that sounded like a good idea until i was told well, if we schedule this and you show up and the officer chooses not to, your case will simply be dismissed. oh, that is really good. we're going to have a process where i get to agree to mediation or to talk to someone and yet they can choose not to even bother to show up and in that case i lose and they win.

the second thing that happened, i was involved in the process and i was told no action will be taken and then i said well, what action was taken? what was done in the investigation? what was -- what did the officer say? all of that is confidential. so basically what it comes down to is you make a complaint. you present your side and then that's the end of your involvement. you're not involved in the hearing. you're not involved in anything else and you can't find out anything else. so you don't know whether the hearing, whether consideration of your item was actually hoped, honest or whatever. what i'm saying is i think the decrease in the number of cases from 2009 to stwen a good indication of something going on. the officers involving themselves in the o.c.c. process and the concern that this is bigger, that this body spent more of its time in private

hearing police matters out of the sight to have public than dealing with the public in total for all other merits. >> thank you for the public comment. >> line item seven, vote whether or not to move to closed session. >> i would like to state for the record so that it is clear to people in the audience, the reason that we go into closed session for personnel matters is that it is required and pursuant turned police officer's bill of rights. they have employee rights like any employee in any organization. in mr. heart's organization it is a private matter. in any other organization. this is -- it is augmented by the police officer's bill of rights and quite frankly, it is prescribed and required by coakley. we have had a lot of debate about that. i think a lot of commissioners would like to have a lovert this

open but we are restrained by the california supreme court. come on forward with your comment. >> your clarification was helpful. i have more of a question than a comment. i was reviewing in this document, the agenda for this evening, the sketch of what is on the agenda. the sketch of what is on the table for the closed session. and well, while respecting the need for employee protection, you know, employee rights' protection and understanding that there are internal matters that are more appropriately internal to the department, i notice on here that one of the items for tonight's closed session is the chief's review of

findings in the degrees to return an officer to duty -- in the decision to return an officer to duty following an officer-involved shooting. i find such a discussion to be something very relevant to the public and i wonder, i have a question. as to is there a way in light of the court decisions that you just referenced, that this process can be augmented so that there is more transparency so that the public gets to introduce its own commentary on whether or not this officer should be returned to duty prior to the internal hearing? >> again, these are personnel matters. they are private. i see your concern and as the commissioners have discussed before that, when will this

become public? ordinarily these things stay private but they may become public if there is any misconduct on the criminal side it becomes a public record and it also becomes public if somebody decides to file lawsuit against the city. eventually if these things do raise to that level, they do become public but at the current stage they are personnel matters. just to educate you a little bit about that. >> thank you. in response to that, we will interinto discussions in the public sector because i find that to be very disturbing, the fact that that is so closed to the public at this current juncture, it is disturbing. thank you very much. >> all right, can we have a vote now for line item 7 to move to

closed session. >> i so move. >> all favored? >> aye. >> ladies and gentlemen, we're moving to closed session. >> we are back in open session. >> can you call the next item? >> item #9 is a vote to elect whether to disclose any or all discussion in closed session. >> i move that will not disclosed. >> second. >> it passes. next item. >> adjournment. >> aye. >> so adjourned.

>> hello. 9 judge terri l. jackson. the court is now recruiting prospective civil grand jurors. our goal is to develop a pool of candidates that is inclusive of all segments of our city's population. >> the jury conducts

investigations and publishes findings and recommendations. these reports them become a key part of the civic dialog on how we can make san francisco a better place to live and work. >> i want to encourage anyone that is on the fence, is considering participating as a grand jury member, to do so. >> so if you are interested in our local city government and would like to work with 18 other enthusiastic citizens committed to improving its operations, i encourage you to consider applying for service on the civil grand jury. >> for more information, visit the civil grand jury website at sfgov.org/courts or call