directors went through two meetings and -- made his vision of what the policy should be. these are set up for members of our command staff. there has been several areas of concern and we are exploring what other changes should be. we also set out our draft in anticipation of the review process. the future needs that we have before we can bring a formal adoption, we have a final return on concurrence. we have to meet and confer which is mandated and it can take up to 30 days. under this process, we have a review and then we'll meet to discuss the changes with a

policy analyst. finally, you have a final concurrence of all the changes we presentedhank you -- president mazzucco: thank you, commander mahone. thank you for all your hard work. if the department bulletins are effectively acting as the d.g.o. and we're operating on that, then we should go ahead and accept it. i understand there are a lot of parties involved. however it hasn't happened in the last three or four weeks, but this is a situation the commission is constantly dealing with. so i hate to do this, but we will set this matter for 30 days and we will vote on it. of course we defer to the professionals. i defer back to what chief gas gone -- gascon said, there is no way we can stop a 4,000 car. i am going to ask everybody, and

we have a lot going on, but this is something that's been a pet peeve of not just me but of other commissioners. i want to put this on in 30 days, and we will vote on it, no matter who makes the presentation. i want to bring it to the commission. calendar for march 2nd. commissioner hammer? new hampshire i have real -- commissioner hammer: we have been told as a commission that it will be ready tonight. former chief gascon said it was a high priority for him. i asked him repettedly if we were on -- repeatedly if we were on track before he left his old job. i asked members on the command staff whether or not we were on track. it just concerns me a lot that the department of bulletin changes, that the new commission, only the commission has a power to change that.

after the public hearing, the public weighs in. we'll speak about this. so i am a little taken aback that after having been told for months we are on track, the procedure involves a bunch of stuff plus 30 days. we're talking about months more. i think on something so important that directly impacts the safety of police officers and citizens of san francisco, like a kid walking down the sidewalk, an elderly person that gets hit by a car, i think it is a crucial thing not to have done. i don't understand why we didn't get more notice before tonight that it wasn't on track. i was told as recently as 10 days ago that we were on track. maybe i should direct this to the chief. >> commissioner, i was not aware that we were supposed to present this to the commission. that is my fault. i will take blame for that. what i would like to do is go

less than 30 days. we'll bring it back in two weeks, if you would like. president mazzucco: we are completely full in two weeks. >> we will have it to you for presentation, and i do not have a reason why we do not have it for you tonight. i apologize. commissioner hammer: and the last thing i will say, i took by cue from former chief gascon. he thought this was an incredibly important thing. a year ago he proposed that we change it. from the public's perspective -- >> i'm looking at you, ok. you're a hard-working good cop. commissioner hammer: i'm just thinking out loud. but this is a process, for it to take the city a year is just not right. i don't know where that got bogged down and stuck, but i think the commissioner is right

to bring it to a head for open discussion with the public and vote on it. president mazzucco: director hicks. hicks hicks -- director hicks: the office of citizen complaints did provide specific suggestions, recommendations for amendment to the officer-involved shooting policy. we did so in the five-year study that chief gascon did. we provided those recommendations which were based on language in los angeles' policy, as well as recommendations. a week and a half ago, we received the draft proposed by d.g.o., and it differs

significantly from what is in the department bulletin. we do hope that we can continue to work collaboratively with the department on this very important policy. president mazzucco: chief? >> again, i apologize that i am not prepared. i had some questions with regard to this, which is why i sent it back for adjustments. we will be prepared to present it to the commission on that specific date. you have my word on it. i apologize for the delay. >> no apologies necessary. one thing i would ask director hicks tonight, if the o.c. does not come through, the department, i would like to see the other draft proposal that we have been talking about. if it turns out we don't agree, i would like to see an alternate so at least we have something that we can talk about and

choose if it comes down to a disagreement. director hicks: commissioner hammer, it has been my experience over the past 20 months that we can reach agreement, and we are looking forward to meeting with the chief and moving forward. commissioner hammer: thank you. president mazzucco: call item 3-b. >> item 3-b is the o.c.c. director's report. review of recent activities. presentation of the o.c.c.'s 2010 annual report. status report on preparation of o.c.c.'s 2011-2012 budget. >> we are delivering the annual

report which i will deliver now.

director hicks: this evening i will present the officer of citizen complaints 2010 annual report. you have a copy of that report in your packet. the report is also on the o.c.c.'s web site at www.sfgov.org/occ. this was prepared by the o.c.c. staff but i would like to give special recognition to chris wi cznewski, the office of citizen complaints. he is our technology person and all things digital. so thank you, mr. wizcewski. tonight i would like to talk about the history,

organizational development, policy analysis, mediation, out-reach, information, technology, and document production. the office of citizen complaints was reated by the board of supervisors initiated charter amendment adopted by the san francisco electorate in 1982. the office of citizen complaints became fully operational and staffed in 1983. it is under the jurisdiction of the police commission. the mission of the o.c.c. is to promptly, fairly, and impartially represent civilian complaints of police misconduct and to also make policy recommendations for police policies and practices that will enhance police community relations. in 2010, several things happened in the organization of note. it was my organization of note.

it was my third year as the director of the office of citizen complaints. the overarching issue of the o.c.c. were potential budget cuts which threaten service delivery as well as staff vacancies that were created by retirement, resignation, and unplanned extended leaves of absence, except for one planned one. our mediation attorney, as you know, had an unplanned leave for two months, and during those two months that she was away, our mediation program ground to a halt. we had two investigators on extended leaves of absence averaging five months. four investigators resigned.

more than half the o.c.c.'s staff are investigators. the balance are attorneys and information technology staff persons and clerical staff. in 2010 the o.c.c. received 854 complaints. we investigated and made findings in 812 cases. we did close all of our 2009 cases, so there was not a backlog of failed cases going forward into 2011. the investigation unit implemented a strategic plan of training for new and veteran investigators, and they participated in community out-reach, but not as greatly as they had done in the past because they had so many cases

that each one had to resolve due to the vacancies. 854 complaints filed in 2010 represent a 13% deviation from the baseline. so they have 13% less cases filed in 2010 than over an 18-year period. the average number of complaints for an 18-year period for the o.c.c. is 954. the 812 complaints that were closed in 2010 represent a 15% deviation from the baseline. the average number of complaints closed annually, 960. again, lower complaint closure for two reasons. o.c.c. staff had a very large

case load last year as compared to last year. last year there was at least one sustained allegation. that represents a 104% deviation from the baseline. in other words, greater than the average over the 18-year period. the sustained rate last year was 8.9%. it is a 73% increase over the 2009 rate of 2.9%. it is the highest sustained rate in six years. we filed complaints with the o.c. c. our cases comprise 30% of

complainants. african-americans, 26% of complainants. so between caucasians and african-americans, they comprise nearly 60% of complainants. latinos and hispanics comprise 12% of complaints. 86 comprise 6% of complainants. in previous years, the complainants have asked, how does this compare to the census data? african-americans are over-represented as complainants with the o.c. c. they only represent 7% of san francisco's population. but hispanics are almost on parity with their population. they make up 14% of san francisco's population and file 12% of the complaints. asian americans are under-represented as complainants where they make up 31% of san francisco's population and only represent 6%

of complainants. in looking at case in take, 90% of the intakes were done in english, 3% spanish, 1% russian, less than 1% consultant knees, french, and -- cantonese, french, and american sign language. the o.c.c. has a diverse staff that speaks many of these languages. we did lose our russian-speaking investigator last year at the conclusion of last year we have clerical staff that speak spanish, french, cantonese, mandarin. the largest% was unwarranted action. 35%. moving then to conduct

reflecting discredit, 27%. neglect of duty, 23%. unnecessary force was 10%. discourtesy 4%. racial slur 1%, and sexual slur less than 1%. 5% of these allegations sustained. 4% unfounded. 3% no findings, and no 3% no finding withdrawn. 67% were for neglect of duty. another 4% were for conduct

reflecting discredit. another 14% unwarranted actions. 12% discourtesy. unnecessary force 5% and 2%. in spite of challenges faced by investigators, we distinguished a back log, but the backlog could grow this year, because 2010 cases were open at the close of 2010. as i indicated earlier, increasing the sustained rate requires much more focus on the part of the investigators in preparing for their investigation, in preparing for the sustained report, which are pretty comprehensive, which involves the attorney staff as well. in 2010, the investigators face

a caseload imbalance. by 2010 only 10 investigators had full case loads because of resignation, retirement, and future plans for this year. the investigators had a case load of 31 cases compared to 21 cases. in 2009, when we had 17 investigators. while 17 remain on the o.c.c. books, two of them could not be filled due to budget constraints. in 2007, the budget issued a report from the o.c.c. prior to

my coming and indicated best practices for investigators, civilian complaints of investigators was 16 case per investigator. 31 cases per investigator is pretty untenable. we started to deal with the issue by hiring temporary investigators. toward the close of december they had to be shortened, and the benl is extremely small. it is 23,000. we will not be able to sustain temporary employees for very long. moving to the legal unit which is led by n. frankel. last year those two trial attorneys, including ms.

vargus-frankel heard nine commission meetings. compared to the year before, 2009, again there were five -- only six commission cases. they were successful in eliminating a backlog of police commission cases that went from 2003 to 2007. in addition to serving as prosecuting attorneys, ms. frankel and ford also due to analyses of o.c.c. cases, they review same reports and they draft charges for the police chief in commission-level cases. moving to the area of policy analysis four major initiatives

were moved forward in 2010. juvenile and police action protocol, and while too lengthy to go into all of them, department general order 7.01 was adopted by this commission in may 2008. the o.c.c. juvenile justice advocate and the department continue to meet on implementation. so two years later they are still meeting on implementation. there have been several challenges. however in september, a press conference was held, which was moderated by commissioner chan, and that announced the "know

your rights brochure" in connection with department order 7.01. the o.c.c., along with the department and others, co-authored an officer's reference guide to this general order which fits in an officer's handbook. the other areas of policy analysis were making recommendations to enhance the department's response to the mental health crisis, and of course we will go into more detail about that at the upcoming hearings. but recommendations we have made and were included in the five-year officer-involved shooting study looked for a crisis intervention team, enhanced crisis intervention training, rollcall training, and modeling this process along the minds of "the music model."

in addition, other policy matters were continuing to advance the 2009 language access recommendation, and to recommend changes as i discussed earlier this evening to restrict the shooting. -- recommended changes to d.g.o. to restrict the shooting at vehicles policy. it is the work of one attorney, the amount of work that is being handled is certainly enough of at least two, and in addition to the policy analysis work, miss marion also does the state ability analysis of the number of investigations we do and after that we have 15 jerry

level reports that are introducing reports. moving to donna salazar, she handles mediation and out-reach. we are proud of our program. it is a nationally recognized program. in spite of ms. salazar's unplanned two-month absence, the o.c.c. still mediated 63 cases by pro bono mediators. these 63 represent one investigator's case load. mediating a case involves time savings, cost savings, and greater satisfaction for complainants and officers. over 90% of officers participate in the mediation program. just in looking at the time savings, the number is 98 days as compared to 166 days.

donna also managed the o.c.c. out-reach program. because investigators were not able to attend as many out-reach programs as they had in recent years, ms. salazar attended many on her own. in addition, o.c.c.'s staff aparticipated in community presentations, language access, training for the department on the o.c.c., and nacole presentations. an investigator for the o.c.c. gave or moderated three

presentations on investigations. ms. marion developed a policy on -- panel on policy matters, and the panel con sifted of a representative from canada as well as idaho. moving to information technology, which is handled by mr. wicznewski, as i told you before, we are a data-organized system. we are strategically run by managing our caseload, and we do that by computer. mr. wicznewski has ensured our computing device is ensured and intwotive. last year he automated document management so we have a near paperless investigative review

cycle. the clerical unit. processing the 854 complaints that were filed. in addition to that, we responded to 45058 pitchess motions and it cost us $9,000 in unreimbursed moneys. how did we do last year? we had no pending cases from 2009. we did have staffing challenges because of shrinking resources and unplanned leaves of absence, but the o.c.c. remains committed to our mission. and in 2011, this year we plan to continue our successful

mediation program to present the police commission with our 2011 community out-reach strategic plan and continue our out-reach efforts. we will continue to evaluate san francisco police policies and practices to strategically manage the o.c.c. caseload and continue the recruitment and hiring of o.c.c. investigators to have a recruitment that is in place for o.c.c. investigators. that concludes my report. vice president mar chal: i think it took me a while to understand these catagories. can you explain scenarios where there would be a no finding or