>> 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. the most important discovery, we have to have discovery in a more timely basis. sometimes we're getting it. the designee from the chief needs to have settlement powers. needs to have settlement authority. for the past couple of years, the settlement conference, the that person representing the chief, that setment authority is not going to work. we are going to be back here dragging them out for weeks and

weeks. also, i would love to see -- i would love this chief to use the captains, empower the captains more more than saying he or she is a good officer. no. they know the officers better than anyone else, and they should be part of the recommendation to the chief as far as punishment or penalty is concerned. thank you, president mazzucco, and chief, for expediting the process. it is not for the commission, but it is for the police officers. having something over your head like a termination potential is not good. you cannot be an effective police officer on the streets worrying about those things in the background. the final comment i want to make tonight is if any new commissioners in the future or even you want some more learning, teaching or a course, i would be glad to volunteer my services for all the new commissioners coming on. we could instruct them exactly

how things should be run. >> thank you, mr. johnson. [laughter] >> commissioners, ray hart, san francisco open government. this is something but a star chamber secret hearing. how can the citizens or anyone beyond this commission and a few extra people know whether these changes are necessary, appropriate, whether they are implemented properly? because it is all held secret. everything you do is in closed session secret, and you give justifications for it. what the citizens get is absolutely nothing. i filed a complaint with the office of citizen complaints, and this is the exact extent of my participation in that process. i get to file a complaint. i get no information about what the hearing was, who participated in it, what

evidence was taken. i just get a form letter saying we have decided there is no support for this case, and the only thing you can appeal is if you want to supply new evidence. you say how can i supply new evidence when i have no idea what was considered, who was consulted, who did the investigation or anything else? basically what i get is a get a letter saying we heard your case, and we decided, and that's it. i think all of these cases go in, and we don't know whether officers are being punished appropriately. we don't know whether they are receiving any sort of punishment at all. i have read the 2003 report from o.c.c. to the board of supervisors, which talked about officers who showed up with weapons and threatened the investigating officers. officers who refused to show up. that is why i objected to mediation. one of the terms of mediation is if one of officers doesn't want to show up, your case is closed.

that's the end of it. well, that would be a pretty stupid for me to do, to say yeah, if you don't want to come in, i will give up all my further rights. there are things that can be released about this without identifying specific officers. but the citizens of this city have absolutely no option but to simply blindly trust that the seven of you and the others that are sitting in those secret hearings are doing the right thing. i have seen enough of the disagreements between you guys over different things that you say out here in the open that i know there are disagreements. as a result, i don't know whether officers are being disciplined appropriately, just like this. what was the basis of the decision? absolutely no friggin' idea. all i know is i am supposed to sit back and say yeah, you decided it, and you must be fair. i will guarantee that the reason these rules are here is

because some of the things you have done in those meetings have been considered unfair by some of the parties. as a result, i have to assume also there are things that are done that are unfair that the public is never aware of. >> do we have a motion? >> i wonder if the chief could comment on his intentions regarding the settlement conferences. >> thank you. i would commit that i would be at virtually all of these unless i was away, and i would hope there would be a few of them we could schedule where i would be there. if i wasn't there, it would be the acting chief at the time. again, it is so important that if it could be disposed of early, and it could save the department, the commission, the city an employee, i just think it is that important, that it should be something that i am at myself. >> for a point of clarification, we do have a

quarterly report on the disciplinary hearings, and they are pursuant to the state legislature, we put out a public statement that talks about how many cases are in discipline and what the disposition is on the case number, but it doesn't talk about the officer's name. it is a quarterly report we get. we comply with. that >> thank you very much. do we have a motion? >> there was a motion and second. >> all in favor? >> without objection. >> thank you very much. >> lieutenant, rith reference to the next items, five, six, seven, eight and nine, those matters will be going off calendars. those were closed session items regarding potential litigation and discipline areas hearings we discussed that needed to be continued. at this point in time those items should be removed from our calendar.

so we can move on to item number 10. >> item number 10 is adjournment. >> do i have a motion? >> motion. >> all in favor? aye. >> thank you. drive home safely.