woefully small based on the importance to the police department's disciplinary process. i would also say that in ideal circumstances, there would be additional legal staff because they only have a couple of trial attorneys to appear before you. there is no other way to slice and dice the other attorney to have him present cases to you. we operate within our budget hough and we are going to provide the best service and quality services that we can. commissioner slaughter: when you were here last presenting year budget, you had charts that showed how many cases over time

were being filed and cleared. and you know how many cases per investigator you had over time? and how many cases for attorneys you had? some years you were operating at 1000 cases a year, and i was wondering what be staffing situation was? >> in past years, we had as many as 17 investigators. the caseload was 21 cases per investigator. the difference was in the year that there were only 21 cases, the clearance rate was higher. investigators devote additional time to cases to sustain them.

it takes time to write the report and developed the evidence that their caseload increases. as i pointed out at my presentation last year, it was a uniquely difficult year because a number of experienced investigators were out for extended leaves of absence. in prior budget cuts, they had to give up much of the temporary salary budgets and so i was not able to backfill positions. when you have a staff of investigators experienced like that, when those investigators go out on leave, they have accumulated those benefits, so

there are no savings. commissioner slaughter: you had a chart that was year by year. >> one of the charts detailed how many cases were being filed year by year. as i understand the budget and the department in general, you had significantly more cases and i suspect it supports all that you are saying. >> i will do that. >> i remember when we get more of the protest, which of things you can lose that amount of people, one of the reason our disciplinary process has been moving is that we have not only then having to resolve things, but hearing our back a little

getting reduced. in the discipline will be swift. i think it is very serious. i am not prepared to pass a budget that will decrease the staff and given the thought it that we have that shows that we don't even have the appropriate amount of personnel now. i think your department is a significant impairment that is needed. president mazzucco: can we move to the second item on the occ director's report? hone >> this is the consent item

of sfp records pursuant to general order 8.10. president mazzucco: do you want to comment? or can we vote on the -- >> president mazzuccrshall and members of the commission, there is a chief investigator and others in the audience that did conduct the audit over the course of two weeks. they are available to answer questions.

>> is charles here? >> they're both here and are approaching the microphone. >> they are one of the ones that i want to amend. we had a couple of meetings and i think we need to get that back on track from the department. one of the things i need some glaring neon, when -- clarity on, when they are doing that type of thing, is there - a report that allows you to tell us if they're complying with the laswws or hoemland s -- homeland security act? wireless taps without

subpeonoena? >> good evening. to enter your question, commissioner dejesus, it has to do with any first amendment activity. there are particular guidelines and it is a particular part of the audit to look at the agency assessed. >> i guess i don't know if you would see it. had the a that you would see it? they cover those kind of first amendment activities. there are some different rules on the federal level. how would you know?

>> they would know what they are looking at, and perhaps a representative can answer your question about what they include in those binders that the staff reviews. >> this is to adopt or pass the consent item. your inquiry might be a little bit beyond the scope of what they are reporting on. >> these are hot directly under the purview -- these are directly under the -- >> we saw things approved up to the chief's level. >> i move we accep ttht the

report. president mazzucco: public comment. on item number three, hearing none. any objection? roll call vote on approval of consent item. >> [roll call vote] >> i will vote aye with that caveat.

>> [roll call vote continues] motion carries five to one. president mazzucco: let's proceed to item number four. >> assignment the disciplinary charges against sergeant ernest tachihara to a commissioner for evidence taken. >> i represent a special patrol officer tachihara. >> commissioner kingsley, i turn it over to you. commissioner kingsley: i think

that we ought to have a telephone conference to get the procedures rolling. if you gentleman with a coordinate with the lieutenant, he will coordinate with the three of us. we will get the ball rolling. thank you, gentlemen. president mazzucco: public comment. hearing none, item number five. >> commission announcements. tomorrow night at 6:00 p.m., some of the commissioners will gather to receive public input on characteristics and traits people would like to see in the next chief of police.

lee will be at a similar meeting and will be in the process of scheduling a joint meeting between the police commission and the public safety committee. of >> who is covering tomorrow night? president mazzucco: i am. commissioner chan. >> parent teacher conference. >> we left one open for you, i thought. >> item number five publeic comemnt. -- comment. item number six.

>> closed session disciplinary cases, including the public comment on whether to hold the item in closed session i. >> we will come back into open session to handle some more matters. any public comment on items in closed session only? is this public comment on how atoms in a closed session? >> i request -- i understand weakene can request open sessio? i just voice my concern that it

should be held in open session. >> item number seven. >> so moved. >> we move into closed session. can we please clear the room. anybody object? >> the commission is moving into closed session. we >> item number9 is to vote whether to disclose any items in closed session. >> moved and seconded. >> why don't you call items 10

and 11 and we will vote? >> i will call the first one. >> item number 10 is the discussion and possible action to grant or deny motions for dismissal of this summary charges filed against when d hurley -- wendy hurley. >> i have asked commissioner slaughtered to provide -- preside over the public portion. >> i would move that -- be recused from this item as well as item number 11. >> without objection.

>> counsel, please state your name. >> -- >> thank you, counsel. we will proceed to consider your motions to dismiss. we have received your briefing and the commission has reviewed it. we have established a scheduling order for the proceedings. we have received, red, reviewed your papers.

>> this is the case of my client and this is a very serious matter. the first motion is in motion that we filed to dismiss this case because the prosecution did not present evidence. the rules require that the department provides this evidence. but the officers might have been present. the prosecuting attorney indicated that he had the indication and it would have been two months for him to get it to us. first, he would make the prosecution turned over the evidence but after -- indicated

that it would take two months to do so, our motion was denied. this case should be dismissed. and that is all i have to say on that particular issue. >> please go ahead and address your comments. if you have anything else you want to say,. . -- if you want to say anything else, go. >> on the overall motion to dismiss, obviously the prosecution was put on the case.

they did not put on one witness. there was 91 witnesses interviewed. the burden of proof is on the prosecution. the officer is guilty until proven guilty. it seems that the prosecution started out saying that she was guilty and she had to prove her innocence. california law and the u.s. constitution affords the officers to process protection before they are disciplined in the workplace. hear, the protections are not provided. there should be an independent review of the facts. there needs to be a separation between the prosecutor, the hearing officer, and the decision maker. here, there has not been an independent review of the facts.

up

all the prosecution and when it was present a video. they did not even bring in the officer. there was no witnesses. this is conduct which brings discredit upon the concept. no witnesses brought forth who had direct knowledge of anything. they simply paid a video that was not authorized. -- played a video that was not authorized. no particular evidence was presented.

with respect to specification number 5, harassment, there was no evidence to suggest that any harassment took place. there was no complaints for bringing such a specification. in fact, the lieutenant in --

>> you have had your five minutes. >> this was not enough time. there is no policy on this. >> that is how this hearing will proceed. >> i did not have the time to make a record. >> we have received your arguments that we have. we have had the ability to consider it. >> i think that i need more time. >> your objection is noted. >> you should have their opportunity to look at the

points that mr. mccoy has raised. there are a couple of new things that i would like to highlight that perhaps might not have come across as well. the issue of whether or not discovery is properly provided is discussed in the various -- i should point out that this very same issue uses the same precedent, same arguments, was litigated in another case, a motion to continue. the commission and denied that motion and i don't see any reason why the result in this case should be different because this is based on the same facts, the same argument, the same law. for consistency's sake, the commission is bound by this decision. in addition, one of the several

arguments that the defense makes with respect to their claim of the sufficiency of evidence was that a variety of points were made during the course of the hearing and through the investigators in the case explaining interviews they had made with other officers, primarily with the two accused officers.

you have to keep in mind that granting the defense motion would be effectively reversing the work during the course of the commission hearing and would be a substantially challenging president to set in terms of managing your case in the future. in addition to that, -- >> i am moved that we move into closed session to deliberate.

>> do i have five minutes for rebuttal? >> you had five minutes and you spent in the argument. we have a motion and a second. >> public comment on the motion? >> public comment on whether the commission should hold up the item in closed session. >> we're not dealing entirely with it just a 10 a, we are dealing with the motion to dismiss. is there public comment on this? a hearing now -- hearing none, we will move into closed session. counsel, we will now move into closed session and we will alert you when we e

>> if each of you can confirm that you have read the motion papers as well as the transcripts. and >> i have read all the documentations for both the motions and the hearing of evidence. >> i confirm that i read everything. >> i have read everything. >> we have read your papers and

we deliberated and we voted to deny the motions to dismiss. we would move into oral argument on the merits of the claim. you have five minutes for closing argument whether to sustain or not sustain the charges. >> we reserve the right to present witnesses in this case. if you deny the motion which is pursuant to the rules related to the trial. we would like for the commission to grant a request to be able to the bring witnesses. we would like for the commission to rule on that request. >> my recollection from the to rule on that request. >> my recollection from the