hicks for working hard on this, during several drafts company -- pebble doing several drafts -- for working hard on this, doing several drugs -- drafats. -- drafts. >> i want to thank you, commissioner slaughter, president mazzucco . both direct hicks and others have been very engaged. not only is it just my particular office, but several members stepped up.

vice president marshall: i appreciate everyone's work. >> commissioner dejesus would like a brief description of the changes that have been made from the original 5.02. >> just to give a very, very brief description, this encompasses a standard, which was not done before. it emphasizes the importance of not jeopardizing the safety of innocent members of the public, as commissioner hammer brought up. the occupants of moving vehicles, when only the vehicle is the threat itself. the shooting of motor vehicles can only be done under extreme

circumstances and under nearly defined ones. -- narrowly defined ones. purposely going after bicycles and pedestrians. extreme circumstances that you would allow for it, but otherwise, there is a general prohibition. it is important to know that the change in this policy will be clearly focused on the training of all the members, just as director hicks spoke about. as you know, in your packet, there is information about in- policy and out-of policy shootings. you should know that is part of a current powerpoint slide that we are using. we have included them in the trading. vice president marshall: thank

you, commander mahoney. director hicks? director hicks: i would be remiss if i do not mention someone, who has worked tirelessly on this issue for several years. et vice president marshall: -- vice president marshall: commissioner chan? commissioner chan: i want to thank you for working on this. a response to direct hits -- to director hicks. >> it is now part of the training. the language is very consistent with what is in the department,

and like i said, that is one of our powerpoint slides now. professional training. commissioner chan: does that address what you have? director hayden -- hicks: yes, commissioner chan, it does. for one year and about two years, -- and now two years. it is very helpful to hear that the training does include a powers. -- including powerpoint. -- the training does include a powerpoint. commissioner chan: i notice that there is a little difference in terms of a standard on page two

of the new dgo, page 3 of the old one, but the biggest one is that there is no provision for using a firearm where someone is impaired. i just noticed that. i am wondering if that is in another dgo, so you do not need that? >> i think some of the tweaking of the language was done with the help of the city attorney, as well. i am satisfied with the current language, but i think it was part of the tweaking done by the city attorney. do you have a comment? director hicks: it was vetted by the city attorney. the occ was not part of those meetings, but that is an exclamation -- explanation.

>> i believe general orders 202 and 203 go to that. vice president marshall: commissioner dejesus? commissioner dejesus: the information that is in the bulletin, you put on the powerpoint? i am concerned if it does not consistently shown, or is old, that we might lose that todd karkovice, so i would just advise you to find a way to stay current -- that we might lose that tactical advantage. to coincide with that dgo. vice president marshall: i think he got the message. thank you.

commissioner hammer? commissioner hammer: a few weeks ago, dealing with some other options. we directed a review of all tactical situations. as part of that review, i think, if we invite the occ to make sure we are continuing to do the best kind of training. she is not shy, and she can come with suggestions. vice president marshall: -- >> it was loose, so tightening upper this, -- tightening this

up, that is important. president mazzucco: commissioner hammer, would you like to make a motion? all in favor? thank you very much, everybody. i appreciate your help. line item number three, please. secretary lt. falvey: i did number three, a discussion and possible action to accept or reject still committed agreement on charges filed against -- to accept or reject stipulated agreement on charges filed

against patrol special officer roberto ortega. president mazzucco: i will turn this over to the commissioner this has been handed to, and that would be commissioner hammer. commissioner hammer: i was assigned this weeks ago and immediately had a telephone call. talking about the merits on this and whether or not they could have a resolution. because i had to act as a neutral intermediary, i did not have much comment on the substance of the allegations, but because it was a public matter, we deliberate in public, so this is everybody's time to chime in. i am concerned by the allegations in this case, and by that, i mean by what is alleged actually being an offense, et -- an offense, so i just want to

zero in on two parts. whoever else is watching. regarding officer ortega, in an area, >> , known as an area of prostitution -- in an area, quote, known as an area of prostitution, stopped his car. no money changed hands. the conversation was not recorded. she gets in the car. they drive on. the key phrase there at the end of specification number one is the allegation, quote, the accused, by knowingly associating with a known prostitute at that time of the morning in engaged in conduct that reflects poorly on the police department, in violence and -- violation of a section. number two is that he frequented

a bar, called divas, and it reads that the accused, and this is a quote, by knowingly visiting the bar, which is located in an area known for prostitution and patronized by prostitutes, engaged in conduct unbecoming. i would just say and allow you to respond, it causes me concern that it suggested that it is in violation of policy to talk to somebody. the word, by the way, is "associate." and to visit a bar. this is a bar, by the way, where i believe that the president of the police commission, president sparks, had a kickoff of the campaign. i am the only lgbt member on

this commission, so perhaps i at a special concern about these allegations. maybe the other commissioners have equal concerns, but when i hear words about "knowingly associated" and visiting places without committing crimes, i have a problem with that. going to places and talking to people. so i will let you address my concerns. i do not want to sandbag you. this is my first time to talk about this. it is on for disposition, but i do not know how other commissioners react to this. >> thank you, commissioner hammer, and we did have a conference call on this. regarding specification number two, also agreeing that that should be dismissed outright. it should not have been alleged in the complaint, but we do

still feels strongly that the conduct -- number one, as well as one rule, 3.04. we felt that patrol special officer ortega's conduct could have been easily interpreted as an act to engage in prostitution. i do not think there was something there to take it to a criminal level, but the department has concerns about, number one, the reputation -- i realize that patrol special officer ortega is not a sworn member. however, he does a similar uniform as sworn members. people see him frequently in this uniform, and i think that

when you have somebody in the early-morning hours, at 4:00 in the morning, having admitted to, and it is not criminal, being in an adult bookstore for a couple of hours, and then at 4:00 in the morning, you allow a known prostitute to get into your car, and when i say a known prostitute, she has a documented history of 30 something misdemeanor contacts involving some things for prostitution- related activity. she has 20 known as aliases. it is not any conduct that is being directed to patrol special officer roberto ortega. if this had been a sworn member of the department, the department would still have been insisted on the specifications filed as well as the negotiator disposition with

regards to this case, and i think that when you have someone who wears the uniform, and does the nature of the work that assistant special patrol officer ortega does, the company feels strongly that you should not be in the company of known prostitutes, and that is one of the reasons why this case was filed, and i can tell you it went through many more reviews before it came across my desk, and so, as i stated before, in regards to specification number two, it should have probably been dismissed earlier and will be. at the conference that we had regarding this case. we do feel strongly that officer -- special officer ortega, his conduct in march 2010 did rise to an issue.

president mazzucco: i am going to turn this over. normally, we deliver korea this in closed session. we do we deliver it in a closed session. this is a public talk -- normally, we deliver this in a closed session. i am one of seven commissioners, and i brought it to this point. if you of something else, go ahead. >> if i may just briefly respond, there are other documented cases from other law enforcement agencies where sworn peace officers have been engaged -- have been terminated for having relationships with known prostitutions -- prostitutes. similar conduct. it would be the kind duct --

conduct. president mazzucco: anyone else? commissioner slaughter? commissioner slaughter: i have concerns about punishing somebody for associating with somebody. somebody got into his car or went to a bar, would that be a basis for us for us to issue some sort of discipline? that is a huge concern to me, and i will just leave it at that if that is something we should do something about, but having somebody get into your car, no other offer to act, going to a bar, and i did not realize, commissioner hammer, i would just leave it at that.

president mazzucco: commissioner chan? commissioner chan: thank you for your comments on this. it seems that we have other priorities in terms of concerns about disciplinary matters. whether or not someone associates with someone who is transgendered, might have a history of prostitution, does not mean that no one should ever interact with that person. that concerns me. that bothered me. it did not seem to be any conduct worthy of discipline and not to be the most tolerant way of dealing with these issues. the second one about going to diva's bar, i would move to ask that both specifications be dismissed. president mazzucco: in consideration, we will start

with commissioner dejesus? commissioner dejesus: i had to say, i read it, and i kept looking for the activity that was violated. terminated for having known friendships with prostitutes, i am sorry. that is just a little bit too much for me, as well. transgendered. you're talking to someone, and they did in your car to go to a bar, i am sorry. i am not seeing a violation. president mazzucco: thank you. dr. marshall? vice president marshall: what led us to this in the first place? both parties agreed.

it came before us, and i remember then -- to hear the matter, so how did we get to stipulated disposition? >> because it is 4:00 in the morning. he is in an area of known prostitution, known heavy traffic. .-- commissioner hammer: because of my role having to be impartial on the phone, i think it would not be fair having to take sides, and i could not have that role, so at that time, only part is to be neutral and have them talk, which they did. to have this body rule, to be honest, i always had a bad feeling about it, but it needed to come back to the commission. that is why we are here. >> i would like to answer. vice president marshall: please.

>> procedurally, the only other way to get this to the commission is to go through an entire hearing. we are here to understand the time and the expense of doing that, versus the bird in the hands. the department was not in the position, not willing for the disposition. the only way he could have gotten here was for thousands of dollars to get here. maybe i should say this. it may be self evident. patrol special officer roberto ortega, i would welcome a motion to dismiss, but this is the only way to get here. vice president marshall: you are saying this is why you agree, basically? >> because we would have had to go through an expensive process. president mazzucco: commissioner

chan? commissioner chan: i should amend my motion. i move to reject the stipulated disposition and then dismiss the case. president mazzucco: commissioner kingsley? commissioner kingsley: i would just like to comment, and i understand what my fellow commissioners are saying, particularly with the sensitivities that commissioner hammer has brought to our attention. the other part of this, in reading it, i can understand the attorney for the department pursuing specification number one are the distinctions that prostitution is in this city illegal. it is an illegal act, and the conduct that took place -- i believe there was a trip to the atm as well as to the bar as

well as the history of the particular individual that was known to be -- to have a history of prostitution. it is the theories i think that leads to our concern, and not just the association with anybody with anybody else, somebody who wears a uniform with law-abiding conduct. -- who wears the uniform. the stipulated agreement was just an acknowledgment for a reprimand. i think in the course of everything that we have said tonight and going through this process that the process itself has probably addressed and adequately communicate the message -- communicated the

message, so i will join with my fellow commissioners in voting in favor of commissioner chan's motion, but i wanted to explain the importance of the underlying message on specification number one. president mazzucco: thank you. dr. marshall. vice president marshall: i do not mind voting on what is on the agenda here, to accept or reject. my problem is we have hearings so you can hear all the evidence. this is a way to circumvent that process. i remember when we started, and i do not have the transcripts in front of me, my problem with it is the second one, because i would want to have the evidence. i cannot dismiss it on a quick

read that way. peter a vote up or down to dismiss. we need either a vote up or down to dismiss. -- either a vote up or down to dismiss. president mazzucco: let me interject. procedurally, how can we go about this? deputy city attorney? >> yes, commissioner. the item is written fairly narrowly, so the only options are to accept or reject. there would be no way to move to dismiss the charges. president mazzucco: i obviously read that we can accept or reject, but as a board, we often have dispositions in front of us that are amended during the process of deliberation and with conference of both counsel, so a

written reprimand, i would suggest the commission as a whole, that we, and they have to stipulate and agreed to it, the disposition would be -- and agreed -- and agree to it, the disposition would be -- >> if you would agree to it. president mazzucco: commissioner hammer, i am trying to get to a position where we can handle this procedurally correctly. commissioner hammer: when you are done, let me know. president mazzucco: commissioner hammer. commissioner hammer: the chief has spoken to repeatedly about not bringing to our dogged things that do not belong on our pocket. not bringing to our darkest --

the chief has reportedly asked -- the chief has spoken repeatedly about not bringing to our docket things that do not belong on our docket. >> i think the parties come if they agree to modify this, that the department. it i think the parties, if they agree to modify this, that the department -- i think the parties, if they agreed to modify this -- agree to modify this, the commission can ban except that. -- can then accept that. president mazzucco: are the

amenable to amending this -- are the amenable? >> we are not agreeable to dismissing the charges -- are they amenable? >> we are not agreeable to dismissing the charges, but the chiefs could do that. -- the chief could do taht -- that. president mazzucco: mr. ortega? president mazzucco: madam city attorney -- >> if that is the agreed upon outcome, and you want this returned back to the chief, then we can do that. commissioner hammer: we can say that it puts it in a bad light,

so do not do it again. that is the kind of talk that it may be. >> a verbal punishments, koran that is clearly in the spectrum. -- verbal punishments, that is clearly in this spectrum. commissioner hammer: we are not going to penalize someone for whom they associate, what, when, or why. a higher standard for our specialists. it shows them that judgment. the oral admonition that this commission be comfortable with. it is that judgment. but does this rise to the level of the commission charged? commissioner hammer: my recommendation would be to have it returned to the chief's level,