tell me if it's out of order andky do it next time. maybe -- at some time is it possible to announce the new captains maybe at a commission meeting? we sort of stumble on that when you get e-mails -- there's a new captain out here! that would be great if maybe you can do that, if possible, announce it here. >> sure. we had a bit of movement so i think it would be appropriate to present the new lineup, if you will, sure. >> ok, great. president mazzucco: that's a great idea actually. any further comments from the commissioners or recommendations? we'll now move into public comment regarding line item 3s a, b or c. chief's report, o.c.c. director report and commissioner reports. any public comment regarding these three reports?

>> good evening, my name is barbara grove, resident of san francisco with a friendly reminder that this city has been established in the early 1800's. police department officially when california was admitted into the union back in 1850, i think we were jumping for the 49ers back in 1849. that means the police department knows what they're doing. and i don't think that they are supposed to have to worry about a lot of the smaller outside agencies coming in to advise this department how to do things. i think they're very well established. and i don't think we need to hear from smaller cities coming in with other ideas. just like the police executive research forum needs to go poof, because i don't think anybody bothered to check them out and it cost this fine city a lot of extra money. in case you haven't been reading

the papers lately, it seems there's a bunch of problems all over this fine city. when you have a lot of extra brass that we never had before, it seems poof was off base and needs to go poof and that means also with the mental situation around here. they have been handling people very nicely here. how big is memphis compared to san francisco? i think we are the leader of the pack in that one. and albuquerque, too. we're still a larger city and know what we're doing properly, as far as i'm concerned. oh, nut case status, me. former police captain secretary, made a nut case because my ex-husband wanted a chief divorce. seems it was very easy for him to gait way with it. i have any opinion of a nut case society around here because it's too easy get away with things and i had nothing to do with it. but he was able to get the word through first because he was an active police personnel,

transfer to the closest district police station rap sheet. hello, i have a nice one because of him. someday i hope to see it some time too. i think it's very creative. i said before about the creative report writing that was issued by him. the police are only playing down what he so stated. i have to say the police do a very good job. they don't need to be told from outside agencies what to do. thank you. president mazzucco: thank you. mr. johnson? >> i'm not here to complain. i want to compliment director hicks from the o.c.c. on the mediation program. the mediation program work vezz well 6789 just as the director said, even though what the officer $was proper conduct, they get better perspective of citizens city. i want to help with the workload, which isy was here last week. last week i brought up a couple different issues that we don't think should be o.c.c. complaints, thereby freeing your investigators up to do other

things, maybe more eedations. but what i would like to do with the blessing of the commission is maybe have someone from the chief's off, p.o.a., someone from the commission -- i know you're always busy but this wouldn't take very long, meet with members of the o.c.c. to see if there's common ground so just because a police officer fails to issue a form, that's not a complaint. if the police officer writes a report and the computer generates the wrong code number, that is not a citizen complaint. neither of those require interviewing or any time and police chief to deal with. we can fix that in a much better fashion. let's face it, the goal here is to keep me away from this podium and this microphone. so i appreciate it if we could have that arranged. president mazzucco: director hicks, you have a response dreefly -- briefly. >> briefly. i'm always open in meeting with p.o.a. we had meetings on several issues in the past and mr. johnson knows how to reach me and we can arrange a meeting.

>> very good. we can have some help maybe from the commission and chief's office. i would appreciate it. thank you very much. president mazzucco: commissioner kingsley? commissioner kingsley: i would be happy to join you if you wish that. so putting that out there for everybody involved. >> thank you. >> next week is here on a wednesday or englecide? president mazzucco: it's here next week. >> you have a meeting every wednesday? englecide is somewhere totally different. ok. president mazzucco: any further public comment. public comment is now closed. on those items. please call line item number four please. >> discussion of possible action to sustain or not sustain disciplinary charges filed against patrol special officer robert burns, file number alwco9220, alwc10094 and

alcc10-233 and decide if toll z is necessary. president mazzucco: good evening, counsel. >> ashley ward appearing on behalf for the san francisco police department. president mazzucco: counsel, do you see mr. burns other his counsel? >> he's representing himself. president mazzucco: officer burns, please come forward. dr. marshall, this is your matter. i will turn the mic over to you. commissioner marshall: state your appearance, sir. >> i beg your pardon? my name vobt l. burns, control specialist, badge number 2595. >> this matter is set for disposition today. we received closing arguments from you. i i don't think we received a closing statement from you, mr. burns. do you want to make one before we begin to deliberate? >> i have a prepared statement, yes. commissioner marshall: go ahead. >> i'm here to make the full commission aware this case is a continuing violation of my constitutional rights under the 14th amendment of equal

protection, equal treatment and due process of laws. for the record, my case is evidence of these violations, perpetuated by certain officials of the s.f.p.d. and police commission of previous members. accumeants through the call of law and authority through their abuse, misuse of san francisco control and special police rules and procedures. since december 2008, i have informed these officials of constitutional and labor violations in regards to the san francisco patrol special police interim rules and procedures. however, the sfpd and police commission officials refused to recognize and denied me equal rights of equal protection, equal treatment and due process of laws. in january 2009, one official, who is an ex-commissioner, told our attorney, mr. charles vonner, who was argue rg about some of the violations that the

interim rules of procedure proceeded, that they didn't care about the constitutional rules. that if we did not follow these rules of the rules of procedure that we would be disciplined and terminated. in september 2009, another official from the sfpd, legal division, told me at my chief's hearing when i brought up the violations of my constitutional rights, that the rules and procedures are the department policy and will not be changed without a court order. since that time, the certain officials that i brought up have ignored all notices of constitutional right arguments and proceeded with their own agenda causing me to believe that a court order is the only way to proceed to end these violations as brought up by the legal division attorney. >> thank you, sir. commissioners, this is not a -- i'm sorry, it can be deliberated

in open session but i personally prefer if it did go into closed session but i will leave it up to you. president mazzucco: let's ask patrol special burns would he rather have us deliberate in closed session or-to-discuss your matter or would you prefer that in open session? before i ask that question, maybe we should have the city attorney for her opinion on whether or not the deliberating should be in open or closed session, given that he's now protected by the police officer bill of rights. >> i don't think there's any basis to go into closed session normally. the basis would be the personnel exception and patrol special officers are not employees of the city and county of san francisco. they run their own businesses. they're regulated by the police commission. so there is no basis to go into closed session. >> commissioners?

commissioner marshall: you have the information in front of you. we can have closing arguments from both parties here. president mazzucco: commissioner kingsley? commissioner kingsley: i'm hearing the patrol special indicating he's not contesting whether or not he complied with the rules and in terms of uniform training and -- what was the third? i'm escaping it. oh, the insurance, that he's not contesting that. those violations that he's been charge with but rather the constitution, he's bringing in a constitutional issue as to whether or not he needs to comply with that. is that right? >> that is correct. if the police commission, police commission said i'm not a employee of the city, i'm not a member of the police department,

how can be charged with violating rules and regulations of a department i'm not a member of and brought up with rules of procedures that don't apply since i'm a private citizen?it'd comment on that constitutional review, it might be helpful to hear that. that is not right in front of us. >> one thing you may not be aware of, 1994, these issues were brought before the court court f appeal, and they decided the commission has the power to

regulate, that there are no due process violations. i believe it was in the early 1990's. however, by virtue of the charter which creates this in the first place and gives the police commission power to regulate, it is ok to established rules which they must abide by in order to maintain their status waas a patrol. >> what you are telling the commission is that each allegation is true regarding the appropriate uniform and

insurance, and your defense is merely that you are not subject to the same rules and procedures? is that correct? >> that is not my defense theory but i wanted clarification, and the city attorney -- that is not my defense. i wanted clarification, and the city attorney failed to tell you that they rolled wheat could not have it both ways. -- that they ruled we could not have it both ways. that is one question we have been constantly asking and never getting an answer for your good >> help me a little here. in deliberations, we do not talk back-and-forth. you are only responding to what

we are doing. that is not your fault. let's proceed in the usual manner. >> the commissioner has requested to speak. >> but is one thing i was going to say if you're a good -- going to say. we have had useful information from the city attorney. i think it is in our hands. we need to sustain the allegations, and we will determine if we can make and enforce our rules and

procedures. my vote would be to sustain the allegations. if you have any questions or want to go over anything, i think we should. that is where we need to go. >> are reviewed the record, and then there are admitted violations to the uniform. the question i had is that there is a running set of violations on a number of different days and whether it would be to speculation -- two speculation's versus one. and i am not sure if it referred to that specific case, because there was some that have been fourth with the department about whether or not the general liability insurance was

provided. i did see proof of the auto insurance. i know there was some question about timing, but it appears it was provided at some point. with no. 4, complying to the orders of a police officer which is similar for the same as #six, i am wondering if that is the same as #five, which is mandatory training requirement, because four, five, and six have to do with mandatory cpr training. my suggestion is to streamline this, to say there is one specification for not wearing a uniform and another specification for not going to the training, and i would not sustain the insurance specification. that is where i am at this moment. >> it seems like there is some

replication there. good >> dr. marshall, you have gone through all three complaints. as the sound accurate? >> -- does that sound accurate? >> there was a question of liability insurance, and the department did not have that on file very good -- on file, so there was a question of where it was supposed to be filed. the place referred to a previous agreement for order, so there was a discussion about how things had changed, and there was something that had been in place before but was not in place now. the department did not have

general liability. i have asked him to provide the information to the department. gooi never saw it, so if it is provided, i did not see it. >> it was never included in our investigatory file. we would have marked that as an exhibit, and there seemed to be zero little bit of new information from the lieutenant when he testified he may have received from the interview, so he seemed unclear about whether or not he had received that information, but he was clear that he would have put it in his investigation. in regards to the suggestion regarding specification, when the department files the

specification, it usually comes in as a general packet of information, and those dates are listed, so rather than file 30 or 25, we make a general when specification that includes those states that occurred in that particular month, because there were so many uniform violations that there probably could have been additional specifications. >> this case was to me about compliance, and this was a commission case, not the intermediary. i feel that, particularly when it came to insurance requirements, there were usually enough to remedy, so i did not include that in the package. that is still an issue to me, so

i would not take that off the table myself. >> i noticed that in the form he actually references the city attorney, and there was a discussion about approach rule. i do not think that -- about a prior rule. i do not think that was cleared up. there was some confusion, and the lieutenant acknowledged he was not clear about when he received certain things, so i am not as convinced on abothat. when >> commissioners, any other input? >> i think in general, what strikes me about this case is a philosophical reluctance to

abide by the procedures and regulations and rules set by the commission for patrol special ists, and if i understand what you are saying, officer burns, that seems to be the crux of it, and it plays out in these various ways of not filling out various forms, not providing them in a timely fashion, not providing the evidence even if you have it, just that there is a struggle, up because philosophically, you do not buy into the structure, and so -- please. >> i have evidence by state law that says the city attorney's office is down by a duty to indemnify themselves, who --

bound by a duty to indemnify themselves because they are considered city employees. good i think it was in 2006 in which it was ruled that candido was a city employee. i am asking for a clearer guidance -- asking for is clear guidance. i must warn member of the san francisco police department. but i was sworn in in 1976 and reinstated in 1989. i have never been on sworn -- unsworn. the commission decided i was not a police officer but a private citizen. under what authority? that is what i am asking. it is not that i will not comply. it is legal guidance so when i

go back to my membership i can explain, this is the law. each commission just came up off the top of their head. for example, the requirement to have insurance for to enter $50,000. the police commission -- $250,000. the police commissioners said $1 million. there is a great gap. this is the state of california telling its security companies they must have this much money. the police commission is telling control specialists say they want $1 million. i have to tell the membership what legal status of this is required under your good >> -- i have to tell the members about what legal status of this is required. >> it sounds like this is a larger case, and you are

bringing this to us, but your violations -- that is your way to and during this test case to way to bring this has case to us, and what the commission has to do is decide whether or not there was violations, and where that might lead might be to a superior court or another venue on this, but personally, going back to my fellow commissioners, i would have to say i would sustain an vote in favor of sustaining specifications commonly -- specifications, because there were intentional violations of the rules and procedures, and you have explained why you have not complied, so thank you for doing that, but on the other hand, i would vote of the

violations did exist by your commission -- admission. >> i want to clarify what the city attorney's office. both of which involve not wearing uniforms, one in 2009 and one in 2010. should those three separate hamas is it up to the department to decide -- should those the separate and? is it up to the department to decide? -- should those be separate? the latest i have lists the specifications. good >> i believe specification one -- >> there are three documents. if you would like, i can call it out.

let's start with the first document, which has one specification requiring the correct uniform. that is september 4, 5, 6, 7, a common 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 30 and he did not wear the appropriate uniform. now do i have a vote? >> yes. >> second. >> roll call please. >> the motion is sustained. [calling votes] >> i want to make sure i get the

answer. if there is not one, i will just votes. >> i have one question about specifications. this specification is for violations in 2009. they brought this charge against him, and based on continuing violations, they brought an additional charges against him. >> that is correct. there was a separate memorandum regarding observations of the patrol officer being out of uniform, so that is a separate complaint of the same violation. >>7 commissioner kingsly: aye. >> let's move to the second

complaint with reference to specification #one, again, and uniform violations, and this time it is laid out from february 3, 2010, and here in rates from september 5, 2009 until january of 2010. he was seen out of uniform 37 times. do i have a motion? roll call please. [calling fovotes] >> it is unanimous. with reference to specification #two, and this deals with not having the appropriate proof of

insurance according to the allegations made by the lieutenant. do i have a motion regarding this specification? can we vote please? >> to sustain this allegation and -- [calling votes] commissioner chan: no. >> that matter is sustained, 4- 1. but let's move on to our third document, alw c10-233,. speculation one is in reference to the mandatory traininnt