supervisor avalos: welcome. >> good morning. thank you for hearing this item this morning. we are here before you to change the policy for the city as we are implementing sf park. we are experimenting with time limits in certain areas that have no time limits at all. one of the issues we have identified it is the fact that if we are to do that, there could be broken meters with parking for more significant about the time. trying to tighten up, creating city-wide policies for parking meters that are broken, giving you a parking cap. for example, if there is a 30 minute time limit in the city,

this is particularly important for the areas that will not have time limits to create a use for a citywide policy to show that there is free parking in some of the areas and to issue fairness. we are asking for approval on this policy. we had originally recommended a 1 hour time limit, the board suggested two hours. supervisor avalos: was there discussion over this being implemented only in areas of the city where the park program was in existence? >> there was some discussion, but we have expanded the citywide time limit. we have moved at the city wide standard to two hours across the

city as well. we are trying to give citizens more time to do what they need to do. right now the city wide standard is two hours. supervisor avalos: under the current parking meter program that we have, outside of park sf, how long does it take for a leader to get fix medicared? >> it depends on the exact meter. it takes us about 24 hours to 48 hours, once we are notified that the meter is broken. right now we do not have the backup software to tell us, in the background, and someone has to call us to tell us that the

meter's broken. on sf park we can tell immediately. timing for those are much shorter. for the other city-wide meters, it takes 2448 hours. supervisor avalos: how often according to a collection? >> it depends on the routes. some routes we go there daily. other routes, we go there less frequently. we deploy the forces as they fill up. supervisor avalos: so, generally it is about one week? when does that go citywide

again? >> we are working currently from project experience. that should be out in the next 12 months or so. we expect to see this parking program in the city as consistent within the next 18 to 24 months. supervisor avalos: what about a system without meters where there could be ways of paying online or with your credit card? where you would not have a physical leader doing the work, monitoring how long you are staying parked? how what with this policy interact with that system? >> there are some areas, particularly england, that have experimented with broke

ringleader -- removing meters complete. a space where they would propel through their cell phone. the important feature is that an individual must have access to a cell phone. so, it would have to be an area where individuals would not have that be available. it would be significant work for the citizens as many of them do not have the technology available. supervisor avalos: what is the -- i do not know if it is an estimate, but the expectations of the mta of how many meters will be out at any given time? you have factor that into the cost of the program and what you

can expect to get in terms of revenue in the change in law? >> what is so much better with these leaders is that you can tell easily when they are broken. the frequency is less and we are expected to see a much higher frequency. we actually have a pretty good track record of broken meters. several years ago there were a lot, but technology and the infrastructure has changed. 1.2% of broken meters is not a lot right now. in we do expect that to go down over time. supervisor avalos: the most

common ways that one will break down? >> the most common is someone puts something in their that does not belong. paper or some other kinds of calling. the biggest issue is someone putting something into the slot. not allowing anyone else to put anything into that leader. supervisor avalos: the meters in the program, do they have other common things? i have had some difficulty at some of them. others are fairly straightforward. >> i think that that is one of the things we are seeing. the sensitivity of the meters, the credit cards, we have had similar complaints. there seems to be a jiggling of the card in some of the meters. this is why a pilot is so

important. if you do want an upgrade program, we want them all to recognize credit cards affectively. the meter being tested right now is the only single space meter. vendors are working to figure out what is causing this sensitivity. hopefully that will be resolved by the time there is procurement. supervisor avalos: ok. supervisor mar: thank you for the proposal. i know the the december decision, you look at other variations and i am glad we are not taking a los angeles approach. sounds like a los angeles bars people from parking at broken meters. we are taking a more san francisco approach. but i know it will have to be a cultural change.

myself, like other drivers, i know that i feel like i have hit a jackpot when i come to a meter that appears to be broken. but i think that this will take a decent amount of education. i hope that there is a good community process that allows neighborhoods to know that this is a new policy. >> this was posted on various web sites. we have to find and of real estate on the meter to posted, but it will have a uniform policy. right now it could be a half- hour, two hours, three hours. supervisor mar: i agree that this seems to be an equitable and fair approach that will help to bring in the revenue for the

mta that is sorely needed. from the supervisors mentioning of the broken meters, most common experience is that it is the card slot that is getting jammed for some reason. so that using my mta card or credit card, sometimes it does not work. it is less of a cooling problem and now it is more with the cards. supervisor avalos: it is always something in san francisco. ok, we will stop for public comment. any member of the public? please come forward. seeing no one, we will close public comment. this item, i would like to move forward with recommendations. without objection. madam clerk, are there any other items before us?

>> no, mr. chairman. supervisor avalos: we are adjourned. thank you. >> of the united states of america, one nation under god, indivisible. secretary falvey: thank you. and i will be taking a roll call

of the commissioners. commission president, thomas mazzucco, commission vice president dr. marshall. commissioner carol kinsley. commissioner slaughter is an excuse. we have a deputy chief with us. it president mazzucco: thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the wednesday, may 25, 2 cells 11, meeting of the police commission. could you please call item no. 1? secretary falvey: this is the approval of minutes for the following meetings, january 19, 26, february 2, 9, 16, and 23, and march 2, 16, 23, and 30, and april 6, 2011.

president mazzucco: now that we have had a chance to review them, are there any changes the commissioners would like to make? commissioner: only a thank you to tom for putting all of these together. president mazzucco: and i agree with the thank you. we have have a lot going on with the police commission. we have. i share my appreciation for these minutes, and i know it takes a lot of minutes -- time. i know you are watching the meetings to make sure you get your nose accurate, so may i have a motion? commissioner: i move. president mazzucco: all in favor? any public comment in regard to the minutes? let's move on to the consent calendar, line item number two. secretary falvey: i number two

is a request to accept a gift of $150 from ms. leslie martin of wells fargo bank to be placed into the mounted unit floral fund in memory of charles t. ellis, #1748, and the fourth quarter 2010 document protocol report. president mazzucco: does someone want to move this? to what have a second? and we will a public comment before go into the next line item. the protocol report, commissioners, that is in your packet. have you had a chance to review that? any questions or concerns? commissioner: no. commissioner: kazakhstan two or both? president mazzucco: -- is this on two or both? president mazzucco: we will have

public comment. secretary falvey: on item two. president mazzucco: line item two. >> really quickly, last year, i requested an account of a donation that was made anonymously to the mounted patrol approximately 15 years ago of over $1 million. i requested an audit of where that money went at the sfpd. i never got a copy of what happened. with the mounted police, in terms of a report of $10,000 apiece, but they do not have 17 new suttles at the mounted police at golden gate park -- they do not have 17 new saddles. coming back, i think when you come down to assignments of money, i think there should be an audit trail of the sfpuc,

regardless of how immediate the funds are or how huge the funds are, so even related to this $150 gift, it should be able to be accounted for 10 years, 15 years from now about where it went, just like the $1.50 million at golden gate park that was given by an anonymous donor that as far as i know has never been accounted for in terms of what happened to the money. that is all i will say. thank you for your time on that, and are we going to a public comment on either number one or not? president mazzucco: -- on item number one, or not? president mazzucco: the approval of the minutes? go ahead. >> there was absolutely no way here to make it public comment, and -- -- there was absolutely no one here to make a public comment.

president mazzucco: any other public comment? hey, how are you? >> i see some new faces, in my name is as, and i am on the case, and i do not normally -- and my name is a.c. -- ace. president mazzucco: can you say this for line item number three, general public comment? >> oh, this is not line item public comment? president mazzucco: thank you, ace. will someone move? may i have a second? now we move onto line item number 3. come on up. secretary falvey: line item number three is a general public comment. >> my name is ace washington,

and i have been here over 20 years basically as an advocate and reporter. right now, i am here, working in a capacity of problems with the police department which i experienced, in which the racial disparity has raised its ugly head. now, some of you may know, two years ago, i came to this commission because i was arrested at the jazz festival, and this officer right here, in my opinion, i think he went way beyond his duty as a police officer and was used as a security person for the festival that comes down in the fillmore. now, i was charged with five charges, all felony charges. i was charged with extortion, battery, stalking, and all of that, which were serious charges, which were all dropped, because it was false, but the

officer had the attitude to go to the judge overnight, and they kept me in jail. they kept me overnight because of these charges, and he went and filed for an order. now, i in here to show you a parallel, because the next person who is going to get up and speak is going to show you something on the flip side. five charges, all drugs, and then there was an order to keep me out of my own the community. now, vote -- five charges, all dropped. there was no justice for him, just like there was no justice for me. i did not come back last year to complete because my family came for a reunion, but i am going to be here this year to see if i can get this order dropped because it is frivolous. this guy here use the no. station to say that i taunted him.

-- this guy a year said i used the no. station to say i taunted him -- this guy here. i had to go through the indignity of saying that i am restricted from my own community, so i'm going to have this gentleman came up, and i will have him start off and tell about what happened. i want to show him that he does have a way. the next process. thank you very much. president mazzucco: thank you, ace. good evening. how are you doing? >> good evening. i felt there was an injustice done towards me, and i feel that when i called the officers, when i called 911 and the police came, they minimize the

situation, and the situation to me was not minimized. i was in a situation where a lady spit in my face, and this it got in my mouth, and i proceeded to think that that was like a battery or assault, you know, and what happened is that nothing truly happened to the lady, even though the officers came, about five or six of them. i had about 10 witnesses who told the officer what happened, that someone came and spit in my face. i am a single parent. i have a son. i would just say this. i am a son, and me and him, if i drink a soda, and he asks for some, i give it to him, because he is my blood. but i do not know about this projected onto the. i went and got tested. there are no results yet. but i also went down to court,

in she was supposed to go to court yesterday, and when i went down there, i was told the situation was dropped. i did not drop any charges, and it was dropped before she went to court, so i do not know if it was the police to drop the case or the d.a. dropped the case. -- if it was the police who dropped the case. i in here to get some justice. i felt if it had been me, i would have had to be going to court -- i am here to get some justice. ok, just to be honest, there was some racial thing going on because the lady was a different ethnic. she was caucasian, and i am black, and here on the report, which i've only got 53 seconds. i need to know what i have to do to go to to get some justice because it was dropped.

i do not know if it was the d.a. i do not know if it was the officers. they told me it was the d.a. >> also in the narrative, if you look at it, it was mentioned "wise" four times. -- "white" four times. president mazzucco: he is doing a good job speaking for himself. i will explain, though we do not normally do this. the office of the deal makes a decision on whether or not to pursue a case. it is not the police department or the police commission. it is the voters. >> ok, so it is the voters. there is no one i can go to about it being dropped. president mazzucco: you can go to the assistant d.a. who does misdemeanor intake, and the general number for that office is 55 3-1752, and ask for the

misdemeanor into a. they will tell you what happens with the case, sir -- and ask for misdemeanor intake. next speaker. >> good evening. my name is eric king. i came before this commission on april 27, and last week, -- president mazzucco: clyde, hold it down. i am sorry. clyde, clyde. >> i came before the commission on april 27, and last week, may 18, tried to get clarification on the findings of the note occ -- findings of the occ with the filings. i claimed that the ss pd tried to run me out of town because i knew the identity of one of their confidential informants -- i claimed that bss p d tried to

run made up of down. -- bss pps note -- the sfpd tried to run me out of town. i know the directory of the occ was present. i am kind of wondering what i need to be to get clarification on the matter is starting to get a little fishy to me. president mazzucco: that was a federal case, correct? >> yes. president mazzucco: 70 to talk to the people of the fbi, and the number -- so you need to talk to the police -- to the fbi, and the number is -- and you need to talk to the d.c. circuit. you can continue to talk about this. -- you need to talk to the duty

officer. >> my next step would be to go to the inspector general's office. this is a law enforcement organization, and they were involved in the case, so i am taking it one step at a time. president mazzucco: i agree. >> so what i would like to do his equivocation on the occ findings, and i gave you all the details prior to the meeting, so -- commissioner: we are aware of the germans issues and have dealt with them as best as we can. we have responded to them, and there is nothing else we can do at this time for him, but we are well aware of the issues that he brings. >> you are an investigative body, and you have to issue findings that makes sense.

the person who filed the complaint cannot walk away scratching the said, wondering, what did they mean by this finding? information only note is a general smoky finding that can mean one thing, and it can mean something else, it 180 degrees opposite direction -- a 180 degrees opposite direction, so you need to be specific on your findings. president mazzucco: i think the best device is for you to contact the fbi. -- the best advice is free to contact the fbi. -- is for you to contact the fbi. i think you need to talk to the duty agent and find some closure. that is where you need to go. i am sort of stepping over the

line a little bit because you have been here, and i have some concerns about what is going on, but i think you need to talk about the -- to the fbi. the duty agent, the case agent that handel did for the -- that handled it. that is what i think you should do. that is my advice. >> but i still would like clarification on the findings of the occ. what do you mean by information on it? it can mean one thing or something else. i am entitled to know that. president mazzucco: we will let you know next meeting, or we will get you some sort of definition. we cannot do that right now. >> well, that is fine. so should i stop by the occ sometime between now and next week? president mazzucco: yes, that would be my advice. it sounds like to have already done that, mr. king.

>> in my opinion, they would have handled it if i received a letter that explains their findings. if you can just say "information only," and that is that, that is not good. president mazzucco: ok. thank you. >> ok, i will stop by again anyway. president mazzucco: thank you, sir. next speaker. >> my name is tom, and i have been here before about the patrol specialist. president mazzucco: how are you? >> i am 5. you have an officer. i do not want to comment on this case anymore -- i am fine. it should have never been on your agenda. they are unconstitutional. you were given a report 10 months ago i believe, or nine months ago. you have done nothing.