monitor. we have significantly tightened the rules surrounding the selection of outside hearing officers. there will be cases floating for months and months. they set very tight timelines that we negotiate. the p.o.a. has input during this process as well. with the president's permission, days they have to complete this process. that takes away a huge hole in the procedures. secondly, we went on to tighten the -- we implemented -- the same timelines we have for ourselves. finish within 120 days. we have instituted the time limits on hearings so again, even though that person is often

paid a good amount of money, they are expected to limit those hearings to an hour and a half per side even though they have leeway to give more. on the back end of the hearing, sometimes we wait -- it could take three to four months. these rules set a very tight timeline. 21 days. then a tight timeline for the parties to respond to that report. so i think with these rules in place if we follow them and the commissioners monitoring it, we're going to solve this problem entirely. but while we're in the process of making these changes, the last one i think was a response to commissioner kingsley or chan. that we'll provide if the president wishes to, he may invite the "outside the lines" hearing officer to -- outside hearings officer to come before

the commission. that's in the rules. at the discretion of the president. we did a few other tweaks in this set of rules. at times officers complained they haven't gotten discovery in a timely fashion. on the back end, where you had a case like this, where there were very late discovery motions, it requires the accused officer at least 21 days before the hearing date to have filed hor his or her discovery motions. we also clarified the issue of -- motions and the time in which that should be done. do it early. finally, a minor issue.

some of these things lingered after the fact. sometimes we visited cases three, six, nine months later and still haven't agreed on what we decided. to file the proposed -- 14 or 15 days to reply within 10 and it is done. while it is still fresh in our minds we can rule on the findings of the facts. i'm open to questions. i have consulted with the chief, with the o.c.c. with the new chief, you were not chief then but chief suhr gave a good recommendation. it is the last innovation which i'm suggesting. all of us have held a conference on the telephone. most of us at some time have had settlement discussions i think and tried to do it early.

but we have never institutionalized early on when that case comes to us we are face-to-face with the parties and put it on the table with the two conflicting sides, to put both positions out there and then us acting as the middle person in an early stage to try to bring a resolution. i have sat here too many times. i think we all have. why didn't we do this settlement two years ago before waiting two years? what this requires is that one 15 calendar days a face-to-face meeting not just with the officer and his or her representative but with the chief very early on and listen to what the officer's side is, perhaps facts that didn't come up in the investigation or perhaps because the chief is confined to only 10 day's punishment under the charter. that is an early stage where they said you know what? i only have 10 day or i can do

it within 30 days or 60 days. it would be a chance early on for the chief to exercise a little more authority in conjunction with the commission to put them on the table early on. if you have been here long enough, you know certain kind of cases are -- and we often have to wait until the end, six or nine months later to get to that point. i think with the commission, the proposed resolutions, i think that is a potential face-to-face meeting really early on to possibly solve some of these cases. >> we all applaud your hard work and the results. both yours and miss blitz. thank you very much. there is a tremendous amount of progress and good work here.

i just have a question on a point of clarification that has to do with that first two-week period where, you know, the hearing officers set up the date and so on and so forth and to have that initial -- person just to clarify, can that be done in two steps? >> it is a good question. the way the rule is set up, within 15 calendar days that the commissioner will have this meet. there are two parts really. one is the scheduling part and one is the face-to-face conference. having talked with miss blitz, within his or her discretion, the most important part is the representative and the officers. i think that is provided for in the rules. >> right. >> commissioner chan? >> thank you for all your hard work. i think of all the commissioners, you have been

single handedly responsible for improving our disciplinary rules. i've seen you report this at least two or three times single handedly and appreciate that you also walk the walk. you handle to resolve some of our oldest most complex cases so now they are off our dockets. i appreciate all the hard work that you have done. i should have asked these questions earlier. my apologies. i had a question about the suggested timeline that we used to have on page four of -- a total hearing time of three hours. i found that suggestion helpful so then i could use that when i talk with a party when they ask me for three weeks i can say actually our guidelines say three hours. i'll only deviate if necessary. >> subsection 1, it makes it a

little stronger. >> great. >> it had the word suggested. this makes it clear in the ordinary case, they will be an hour and a half each side. >> great. thank you. i'm glad that is already in there. i will continue to emphasize it. then on page 14 on the discovery piece, i noticed there was a shift from 14 days to seven days. i just wanted to know the reasoning behind it. >> again, i think we're all seeing cases rather late in the case. somebody saying they don't have discovery. the department in my view is going to seek to terminate a police officer, they should have all of their ducks in a row. certainly within a week of filing those charges, everybody ought to -- that's the idea to try to make it tighter.

part of the problem, commissioner chan, we haven't really reached that 90-day and 120-day resolution. that has been our goal. every week we -- makes it much more likely we will hit that. that's why we try to make the timelines tighter. commissioner chan: that's what i figured. i wrote down good in a lot of places. i appreciate that the deadline as to when discovery concerns are brought up, i find that discovery concerns are brought up a day before the hearing. i appreciate that. commissioner hammer: these are real life cases. commissioner chan: page 21. i only have a few more and then i'll be done. page 21 is -- asks about open and closed session. just explain to the officer they can make a request for either. should there be a time limit placed on that too? >> commissioner hammer: they have a right to their -- different

rights. the charter and state law. i haven't been in a hearing where people asked for open hearing. that has to be fluid. there is a form which the city attorney has devised and we have used. the officer waiving his or her right to closed hearing. that's ordinarily under subsequent cases, they have a right to have closed hearings. commissioner chan: thank you. excellent answer to every question. page 25. my last question. since we have been kind of combined, penalty and deliberations into one evening, keeping them separate but combining them into one evening so you don't have deliberations one day and then a year later the penalty phase, that can happen. i think there have been several months in delays sometimes. i want it stated clearly and if it can't, i understand that you

can actually have penalty the same evening or same session as deliberations. as we have moved into this practice -- i have actually received motions from parties complaining about putting those two on the same evening. commissioner hammer: that is in the rules. i will actually refer to my teammate over there. you're putting us both on the spot, which is good, but i believe that is already in the rules. perhaps she can find it while we continue to talk. commissioner chan: thank you. commissioner slaughter: an enormous thank you. a benefit to the commission, the department, and the officer, getting a swift, fair and thorough process. so commissioner hammer thank you very much. following up on that, this last item that you just raised today orally i think could be the most important of all, which is

mandating an early face-to-face meeting to talk about what this case is really about and do we really want to spend a tremendous amount of time and resources to do so? fine, we'll do it, but let's see if there is a chance to resolve it soon. i think that could be a tremendous innovation. hey, lawyers get used to going to court. you file motion and forget -- pick up the phone and see if we can solve it. great idea. thank you very much. i guess my last question, and this could be for miss blitz as well. with respect to the open versus closed hearing, i agree it has to remain fluid. it ought to be in writing. we have situations where i saw there was a rule where there were situations where even though there could be an open

hearing that there would be some portions that could be closed. i didn't see it called out but my question is whether we can call out appropriately the deliberation regardless of whether the officer requests an open hearing for all purposes, whether deliberations amongst the commission would nevertheless be closed. i don't know if that is permitted or not, and if it is, i think it ought to be in the rules that there is no confusion about the matter. that is mostly a legal question, i think, my understanding is that we are, but -- commissioner hammer: that splits the question to whether or not we have a right deliberate in closed session with the officer. commissioner slaughter: my understanding is we can't and if we can't, i think we ought to note it in the rules, even when

an officer requests an open hearing. commissioner hammer: i believe that is correct as well. >> that is correct. the commission always has discretion to go into closed session without the parties present to conduct deliberations. the officer's right is during the entry portion over the case. -- of the case. in the land of police disciplinary cases, sprummings closed session because of -- prudges is closed session. so the presumption is closed. the officer can waive that to have an open session. open session, public session. when it is closed session, it is closed session. you sometimes hear me calling

closed. closed session when the commission goes into closed session deliberations. that is at the commission's discretion to do that. >> all i wanted to make clear is even when an officer has waived his or her right to a closed session hearing, even when the officer has in writing said i want an open hearing that the commission retains the authority to do deliberations in closed session. >> i would, if you want to add that, do you want to propose -- i have something to suggest. it might be helpful to push back an attorney in a specific case. >> i'll leave that to the scregs of my fellow officers and commissioners and the city attorney. i don't want to -- i wouldn't want later on the officer to say -- >> your experience so it may be a good idea. i have two oral amendments.

that would be one of them. i want to address commissioner chan's earlier question. page 24 b the last two septembers read under commissioner review of the record, the commission will deliberate and decide the case, in the scregs of the commission, it may be sivered and decided separately. -- severed and decided separately. the commission may, at its discretion, deliberate in closed session without the parties present. the second proposed amendment, and that is the part we talked about in terms of who will come on the chief's behalf, the chief's prerogative, commissioners on page 8, roman numeral iv, do you see at the

top of the page in gray and red? under -- it is the paragraph that begins at the initial case management conference. the last part, e, which reads conduct an earlier resolution conference. the accused member and his or her representative must attend in person and the chief and as it reads now, committed the second -- where it designated command staff representative with case resolution authority must also attend in person. my proposed resolution is to change that second sentence to read the member and his or her representative must attend in person and the chief or his or her dez knee -- designee must

also attend in person. one is, what limitations you go to 10 days and then there is a speed burn and everything else goes to the commission. i think if done properly in the rights spirit, that first chance is effectively a chance for the chief to exercise a little more authority with commission oversight. if it is truly a 60 or 90 day case in your minds as the new chief, i believe that is your chance. it is a chance for the officer's attorney to say i've been around for a long time. you're going to get 60 days now or in a year and you're going to go through a lot of hell and money in the meantime. if that honest conversation happens with the chief at the table, you effectively starting tomorrow could have more authority within the charter.

of course it is for all commissioners to approve that. get a previous sense of what a case is worth. if everyone does it in the right spirit, the same with the o.c.c., that it is a real chance to figure out what a case is worth early on. it is a hope i think. there is a chance. the last comment i wanted to make, couldn't get it done in time for tonight's meeting because of the 10-day notice requirement. we're talking in these rules about what happens when charges are filed. we had this idea that in cases either from the o.c.c. or from the department that are headed towards the commission to institute under the rule, the commission can work on it for a couple of weeks, is for the department to send out a letter to an officer saying i have initially determined to charge

you. here are the charges i'm intending to charge you with. if you would like to meet with me before i do it, you're welcome to do so. at that meeting, the officer could come, face the music, chief suhr could say listen, you might get fired. i think it is a 60 day case or whatever you say. if you were to come to an agreement, the officer, steve johnson has been around enough. i know where this is going. you want to live with this for a year or do it now. they could file that of-day proposal together with the charges and within the first days of the calendar, the chief would be here and say with your permission, i need 60 days. i think a good number of cases very early on could be disposed of very early on. miss porter has come one a

draft. i think if we put that piece into place, i think we dramatically cut down the number of cases. >> great, thank you, commissioner hammer. your work on this has been unbelievable. the interim rules we put together. the new rules. the accommodation of rules. i have to tell you it has helped the process and you get all the credit for this. and again, you spent a lot of time and a lot of thought went into it. you met with the necessary parties. the good news is that we want to make clear to you, chief suhr, that we sat here where your lawyers came to us and said this is a termination case. we can find a middle ground. these recommendations that we have been trying do, thank god for chief suhr who has taken control of this and we're getting fewer cases with the police department, the chief is exercising his position in giving 10 days.

in my opinion, it is no good for an officer who realistically as possible came in this 30 or 60 days, for two years is sitting there with a charge document that says termination. that makes far bad police officer. we really want to move this situation forward. steve johnson has been great. putting together appropriate dispositions this commission has been approving most if not all of them. >> i really appreciate it. whenever anything is dragged out, the person that is being dragged through it is never the same when they come out the other side so i think it is all part and parcel with the discipline law and i think it would be great. >> thank you, dr. marshall. >> i don't have any problem with

-- maybe 3 $4. if we have a -- 3/4. if we have a study guide. to all the lawyers that didn't want to be on the commission. really. this is a horrible document and i will have to -- i'm going to tell you why. a lot of times it is assumed that -- i know these things. it is assumed. i think a document -- it is important that we should provide something. it may be second nature to you. it is not second nature to me. what i think is important to do,

let me just say one other thing. help me with this. this might summarize just a little bit of the confusion that i have around all of these procedures. legal terms. procedural trial of disciplinary cases. i thought these were administrative hearings and not trials. >> they are. but perhaps we should change that name. it has been there a long time. >> we're not supposed to be doing trials. we're supposed to be doing administrative hearings. back me up on that. >> legally, these are administrative hearings.

administrative abjudicative hearings. it dates back to 1932. it is called a trial. that's the old-fashioned jargon. legally, you are entirely correct. >> for me, it would have some sort of -- >> miss porter and i have talked about this. we think it is a brilliant idea. thank you. >> just a follow-up to what commissioner marshall was saying and our city attorneys.

i propose an in-sfers is great and i think we can all -- in-service is great and i think we can all benefit from it. another approach is to develop -- this might be a rather crass way of describing it. that each of you commissioners that comes on is given -- in addition to this so that it starts, maybe a c.d. have, the in-service training put on a c.d. so as there is a rotation of different commissioners in coming in and out, they can have something that they can get, you know, get it instantly. when a case is assigned to you. beginning with that and put in lay terms so that a person doesn't have to have a j.d. degree to get through all of this. >> if i can just add one more

comment. there is a lot of questions that come up i have to ask on the fly. in service i get asked those questions amongst my colleagues. it would be a lot better for me personally. >> absolutely. as an interim, maybe we do the in-service periodically, like once a year, every other year, whatever works but in addition to that, have something that can be handed to commissioners to take them from day one of the time to kind of guide them through this. it sounds like it is a bit of work. on city attorneys who are already stretched. maybe working with a commissioner, that would work. >> great. thank you, commissioner dejesus. >> i move that we accept this. >> i would like to clarify for the record and would like permission that today the

amended proposed rules, governing trials of disciplinary cases incorporate an event and super seed 52-07. which are the police commission's supplemental rules governing assignment of police commissioner cases. >> public comment regarding these changes? yes? >> one more clarification regarding the amendment. as to the amendment clarifying that the commission may -- [inaudible] other places to make a comprehensive

[inaudible] >> is it possible we could stand at a more global location? possibly in front? >> in concert with your intent -- a more global location. >> my public comment regarding the rules changes? >> i just want to make sure we have all the updated amendments, changes. i just want to make sure there is nothing new that we haven't already seen. >> the only change, mr. johnson is the change that the chief -- everything else, the conference we talked about, the selection process. the city attorney. >> that is the most important. there are very few cases that can't be settled.