complaint review board, in 2009, they have 07 thousand 600 cases. reverses' 6487 cases in 2010. this was a 15% reduction. one of the concerns looking at how we receive complaints, again, this is early on in the year. it could be an anomaly. in my discovery, by reading the blog, there was a civilian

complaint filed with the district station and it was not referred. what i have requested of the command staff is to develop a department bulletin to educate the captains at the various district stations of the obligation to reverse civilian complaints. of course, that doesn't preclude the department itself from conducting its own investigations, but there is still the obligation that we receive a complaint. i have also offered to command staff to meet with them at a command staff meeting in bringing along the chief investigator to explain that the obligation. moving on to case closures.

during the first quarter, we closed 218 cases which means that we closed 30 more cases than we opened. we closed the quarter with 396 pending cases. by the end of the quarter, and there were 207 pending cases. and nine from -- [unintelligible] 5% of them took more than a year to close. nine of the 10 cases that took more than a year to close had no sustainable allegations, but one of them did. however, the statute of limitations -- it remains constant in the first quarter of 2011.

the office was slightly faster in closing sustained cases during the first quarter of 2011 compared to the first quarter of 2010. and a number of cases that attorneys need to review. in the first quarter of 2011, 12% of sustained cases were completed within nine months had won sustained case as i indicated earlier was completed more than 365 days after receipt. during the same time, only 6% were completed within nine months. the impediment to a more timely completion of sustained cases are attributable to a least four factors. the increased number of sustained cases in both in 2010 and 2011, a d.c. creasy -- a

decreasing number of investigators. compared to 17 during the fourth quarter of 2010. the third factor is the active trial calendars where the prosecuting attorneys also served as a vice attorneys on sustained cases and sustainability reviews of investigations. finally, the increased policy were for the analyst attorney that also served as an advisor attorney on sustained cases hand in sustainability reviews. in looking at the types of cases and allegations in cases that were sustained, neglected city represents the sustained allegations in 10 of the 16 complaints. five of these complaints with sustained and neglect of duty allegations or 31% of them or failure to collect traffic -- in

the 2007 study on fair and impartial policing, she discusses the importance of accurate data collection should the department determined that it will collect traffic data. additional categories include unnecessary force, conduct reflecting who discredit for misrepresentation in an incident report, smashing the bottle industry, and harsh, demeaning, and pro-family and which. another area of unwarranted action was for an illegal at searching. confiscating a driver's license and interfering with the rights of onlookers. and other types of neglect of duty included a violation of juvenile protocol, department general order, a violation of language policies, failing to prepare an incident report in an incident a revolving --

involving injury. and leaving a magazine with live ammunition at a residence at the scene of a police operation. moving to case management, as i indicated, we have less investigators with higher caseloads. it showed a significant increase over the same time in 2010. and again, as i have said, it is attributable to a decrease in journey level investigators have at the close of the first quarter of 2011 and 17 at the first quarter of 2010. the average caseload was 27 cases per investigator. in 2010, 24 cases. and referring again to the 2007 audit of the operations, they concluded that an average of 16 cases was a best practices

caseload for investigations. the chief investigator is stepping in and doing investigations themselves which limits their ability to do management supervision, and light of the very few investigators, that is what is occurring. moving on to the area of mediation. during the first quarter of 2011, we needed 18 cases compared the five in the first quarter of 2010. our coordinator was on unexpected leave for seven weeks. it showed what would happen if we don't have a mediation coordinator. going back to the first quarter of 2009 when she was there, she was able to facilitate the mediation of 16 cases.

as i previously mentioned, the mediation rate was the%, and it does represent the work of a full-time investigator should those cases have not have been mediated. last year, 85% haworth satisfied in whole or in part with the process. moving to of reach, how reached during the first quarter was minimal. the investigators perform a lot of the outreach activities and they could not because of this low number of them and their need to investigate cases. the most of the average work was done through the court later. as well as our policy analyst. she attended the alternative dispute resolution conference as well as a community board training. through community boards, we are

able to attain that volunteer mediators. and in other jurisdictions, they pay for the mediators. in 7 cisco, our mediators perform the service at no cost. moving to the policy, as you are all aware, the average work included the crisis intervention team project. to establish a crisis intervention teams through a collaborative process between the department. she was also involved in the juvenile protocols project. and an implementation of that general order. i also made a presentation during your commission meeting held in the northern district. we also staffed informational tables and one operational home

connected with the family's summer resource fair hosted by the city department of children, youth, and families. what we have found in recent years is that non-profits are doing less and less of those resources ones where we were able to do outreach. with budget limitations, less of that is occurring. but i will be exploring how we can reach underserved communities to come up with some creative solutions to that. i will be presenting to the commission the 2011 community outreach plan. commissioner chan has agree td to meet with me. moving to a policy analysis just briefly, the advanced policy

working in three areas. he response to mental health crisis, restrictions of shooting on vehicles and police procedures with a juvenile. to conclude, in spite of the fact that the occ continues to face but the restraint, we committed to our mission to promptly, fairly, and impartially investigate complaints of police misconduct. president mazzucco: thank you, director hicks. more importantly, we really want to support you in the budget. i am a firm believer that a stronger occ makes for a stronger police department. my favorite program is mediations. that is incredible. the decrease in investigators, i am glad that the supervisory

investigators are now participating, but we have to make sure that your staff is strong even though looks like the good news is the number of complaints are down. they are significantly down. but we have to stay in operation assuming we will go back to the usual numbers, but i hope we don't. i will be there to support you. i want to commend -- and of the people are working the short staff and your working really hard. i want to thank them. he is a hard-working attorney, as are you. i appreciate everything you have done, i appreciate the hard work she has done with commissioner chan. it is a very thorough report and it is good to see these statistics. again, we need to make sure that you have the strength to maintain that. commissioner chan: think you for

your hard work and the helpful summary of the report. i had a question about the five complaints that were sustained or there is a failure to collect traffic stop data. just across the board for california, we can monitor if there are any problems. when you don't have the staff, you don't monitor that. it was 2008 or 2009.

>> they determine whether or not to uphold have the state findings. the progressive discipline, what it appears, an officer makes the mistake the first time. they are counseled were trained. if it is a repeat or perhaps if there are other things in the disciplinary background. it can result in a written reprimand. that is year. i will let the chief respond as well. >> i want to put it in perspective, again, my friend of reference right now is from extrapolating it out over the

police department. we give approximately 100,000 tickets a year and you have five sustained complaints. at the outset, i will be sure to put out a reminder to the officers to make sure that they put it in. hopefully next year, we will have less than five. >> from working on this in the past, i know that the data is not always collected. i think it will be great to look at this issue. >> us from the numbers, taking the matter seriously, especially coming from bayview where we are in complete compliance, i will make sure it is across the department. commissioner chan: i wanted to thank them for dedicating the time and resources, helping them execute and develop the crisis intervention teamwork. you have been instrumental in making that happen.

i want to make sure that we recognize that. >> what we are learning and i am sure you are learning as well is that there is regional and national interest and what an francisco is doing. we're getting calls from other jurisdictions about the implementation of the program here in san francisco. >> there is talk about turning it into a regional peace where other cities and counties do it and we support each other in terms of training? it is long term. san francisco tends to start things. president mazzucco: any further questions? item 3c, please. >> commissioners reports. >president mazzucco: my report

was covered on the biggest activity of the day. along with the head of the human rights commission, the former commissioner, we have had two meetings with members of the aclu and members of the police department regarding the general order. there was ambiguity in the current memoranda of understanding what the fbi participation in the joint terrorism task force. i think we made it abundantly clear in both meetings in this commission that there was an issue that arose. if there is a conflict between what our officers are doing, a conflict in what they have been asked to do with what the general order is regarding activities, that it would have

from the general order. the commander is present tonight. he has said it may be for five times at the meeting. they were there this week for the meeting. i was shocked and dismayed to see an article today blowing things out of proportion with serious misrepresentations. somebody perhaps wasn't listening to the meetings. we have good faith to work with that. this is one of the new matter is that they get to deal with. from what i have seen, i think the officers are in complete compliance and the think it has been pretty clear. i want to clear that up and i think it is important to clear it up in light of the article that i was advised to take a look at. it was shown to us tonight. there is no fact to that

article. that is my little report. commissioner dejesus: i think i am in that article. and i read the last one and the new one. it certainly wasn't brought to our attention. there are differences in language. paragraph 5 is incredibly ambiguous. the decision will be made to benefit one of the departments. it does not say. the following paragraphs are very precise. if the information is owned by the fbi, and the information or whatever else they have, the officers are restricted from giving people information without clearance. if we don't know they are in a position to violate an 8.10, if you don't know it, we're not going to know it.

only the f.b.i. is going to know it. they take a lot of control in that document. it says we're going to do what's best. it doesn't say what's best. the previous one said our officers will not violate any of the state constitutions which is the way it should be. they should not be in position where they have to violate it or they can't talk to their immediate supervisors or get any advice from anyone else in their division or department who doesn't have clearance in it and i think we immediate somebody on this commission -- maybe we should all have the same clearance and we should all know what is going on and if anyone is put in that same position where they have to go to the chief. i read it and i am concerned. i would like to participate in those meetings. i applaud you for meeting with them and applaud the department for doing what they are doing and i do believe the best

intentions are not to violate it. it is not that clear in the document as it was in the previous document. we're just leaving it for something to excloud and then say there is no checks and balance. nowhere for an officer to go. no one in the department has the same clearance. we did not see it. that real important little protective language is taken out, our officers are bound by our constitution. i think that is a real simple thing that could be altered and i think we're just leaving it to explode if they are to decide what is in the best interest. control of the information. control of the officer and no one else is really going know. >> commissioner hammer? commissioner hammer: i would direct a question to commissioner dejesus. the first concern is how does the document get inside without them knowing about it?

we're not going answer tonight. it is not on the agenda but it is a question. if documents are being signed which might undermine them. i think the question is what is the procedure by which something would have to be vetted by the commission to say wait a second, this is not what we ordered. commissioner dejesus: no, i talked to an ex-commissioner. this was brought to our attention. that was significant language that was excluded. if they could violate a d.t.o., where is the check and balance? >> where is there protection? >> that was raised commissioner hammer. that is one of the things we discussed yesterday. some say they don't want the police commission to review every m.o.u. that there are too many. but that is really important

when we have had some discussions about that. but there will be, i want to make perfectly clear, our officers have been told -- commander mahoney has been advised when there is a conflict, 8.10 controls. that is an issue that needs to be discussed. we made a strong effort. i think commissioner slaughter was at one of the meetings with me. we're working towards -- it is a collaborative effort. i can't wait to have chief suhr there at the next meeting. >> it involves a general order. >> 8.10. >> 8.10 is sound. commissioner dejesus: we're also -- negotiating that too. >> sorry, i wanted to make that clear, that commander that honey

has made clear to everybody as we iron out the small issues that need to be discussed. commissioners, any other reports? ok. so we move on to line item 3-d. commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration for future commission meetings. >> we tried to schedule something for the human rights commission and pick a date for that. >> what is our visibility for may 18? >> i'm going to be out of town on business may 4-may 11. i should be back by the 18th. >> how does that sound for the rest of the commissioners? president sparks once said when they have their hearing there is a report full of perceptions. not proof. it would be a perfect opportunity for us to get

together and answer questions just like the one we talked about. how does the 18th sound? >> i may be out of town that weekend but i'm a firm believer in not holding the commission hostage to one commissioner's schedule. if i'm there, great, if not, i'm sure i will get a full report from folks. >> thank you. commissioner kingsley? commissioner kingsley: i'm not sure if this is really an agenda item but it seems like the most appropriate time to bring this up. i think as a commission as a whole, we want to give our thanks and recognition to interim chief down and might that be something that we want to do at our next meeting to be able to recognize him and have him here and be able to express that gratitude and recognition? >> that's a great idea. thank you.

any further items for scheduling from the commission? hearing none, public comment on line items 3 a, b, c and d. >> commissioners, chief, director hicks. there were two things i want to talk about. one was the chief's report. again, we went over and rehashed the promulgation of the rules for 2008. i kind of sense a lack of responsibility being taken by this commission. they were your rules and last week i got the impression you were actually surprised that it was your responsibility to enforce them and i would also like to point out the fact that if the ruled have been in place for two years and they have not been followed, what makes anybody think you simply saying now you need to follow them, it

is going to make an impression on people who haven't followed them for the last two years. number one, one thing i would like to mention is i was in the military for 12 years and if i had allowed any of my qualifications to lapse, my nuclear power plant supervisor -- i would be up before the captain or be charged with dare lix of duty you see -- dereliction of duty because i failed to do the things required by my job to perform my duties and if i had gone the extra step and still went out, i would be in court-martial. i can take a chance, a one out of three chance with someone who isn't qualified to use that weapon they have at their side. i know where that goes on.

and also, the contract chal arrangement. every citizen of this city who contracted with them for protection did so understanding they would follow all the rules. they have been not been doing that and as a result what liability have they placed not only on the city but those people who were involved with them who rely on the city to enforce the rules and unfortunately haven't been doing it and that raises a whole bunch of other issues. now on the o.c.c. director's court, i will be honest with you. i looked at this and i don't see much different than what i see in each quarterly report which is a bunch of statistics. if you want to have an effective program don't just sit there and point at each other and say oh, i think you're wonderful. get two year's worth of people who participate in mediation and put the item on the agenda and

get them to come in here and tell you what they thought of their experience. i really don't think that you would dare to do that. i have a funny feeling a lot of people come in and say well, i went through it but i feel i got hosed. because when you do that, you give up all of your other rights. my case is done. >> next speaker. >> commissioners, once again, good evening. i want to talk about something that is going to be very pertinent to the police chief and also to the city at large. we live in a very diverse city. yet from the o.c.c. i see no diversity in terms of the number of complaints made based on racial qualifications or