contained within this order for adoption by this commission as department policy. president mazzucco: commissioner slaughter. commissioner slaughter: i think in light of the process that the chief has just described that this working group is taking on, not sure if scheduling something before this commission in the near, near future, meaning the next few weeks is the best idea, perhaps letting this working group get some miles under their belt, so to speak, and then coming back to us perhaps in two months rather than a month but if people want to start it here in a month, that's fine. but i mean -- >> i'm happy to provide monthly updates to the commission as to the progress of this drafting of this order. if that would be amenable to the commission. president mazzucco: commissioner kingsley. commissioner kingsley: thank you, commissioner chan for bringing this up. chief, sir, you did bring this to our attention, your plans to

rework a general order and prepare a new one that addresses these issues. was it to prepare a new one? >> there is no general -- this will be the first one in the history of the police department. commissioner kingsley: thank you for clarifying that. as i have been looking at this issue in general, it's both from the angle of community policing which is more of a focus of the chief of police interacting with the community in that direction, but also i think with the advent of the community boards fairly recently, the other way around, too, vehicles for the community to gather at a grassroots effort and bring their input and ideas in energizing them so that that input is in there as well so that both parts are there

>> and we've discussed this before and have a great deal of experience doing both of those and have been quite successful at doing it. i would be very happy to follow what commissioner slaughter was suggesting as well, to postpone our commission meeting as a whole, or people coming before the commission to see what this group is working on and where it goes and -- but to hear back periodically maybe to have a couple of people assigned to that task of reporting back to us, you know, regularly to kind of keep us posted until september so that we've got a flavor of what's going on if we can't occasionally attend the meetings ourselves. president mazzucco: sure. and anybody is welcome. we will be going out to the community in the event the community -- commissioner slaughter: we'll hold meetings in the community for input. the advisory board members if they want to participate.

with the goal being that when we arrive at the general order for community policing, there's nobody that feels that they were excluded in providing input. commissioner kingsley: perfect. that's great. thank you. president mazzucco: commissioner chan. commissioner chan: thank you for the update. i appreciate you're ahead of the game and working on this. it's wonderful. the september date, what specifically was that for, i missed it. >> to present a draft to this commission for adoption. commissioner chan: great. >> for public comment and obviously since it's a draft, however long it takes after september 15 being at this commission, that's how long it will take until we can make it department policy. commissioner chan: great. that sounds like a better process than having a commission hearing on this because it involves the community in a more thorough way. i would suggest that maybe one or two commissioners

participate in this, as these forums are happening throughout the summer, try to attend them and if we can rotate and have at least one commissioner or two commissioners at each of these forums so we're engaged and hear the feedback, too with, and it's not being reported back thousand. president mazzucco: i agree. it's a good idea. obviously we have the quorum requirements and obviously we all can't go and will to break it up and go two at a time with the chief's invitation and we see the general order and see it the night for passage tonight and you are the definition of community policing so i really appreciate you getting out ahead of this way before we even had to do something about it. >> i'm flattered but i think there are many people in the police department that have attended and contributed and i'll make sure lieutenant falby is aware of any calendar meetings. so the public can attend. president mazzucco: commissioner marshall. commissioner marshall: lieutenant, real quick, today is the third wednesday so this

is normal discipline wednesday, right? technically. third wednesday was a big heavy discipline, so next -- president mazzucco: typically. commissioner marshall: so we're not facing it next week because commissioner chan wanted it on the schedule. i just wanted to check. president mazzucco: is there any public comment regarding line items -- >> one more announcement. on the 29th the commission will be meeting at the engle side direct at visitation middle cool at 450 raymond street, at 6 p.m. to meet with the public, hear comments from the engle side station captain daniel mahoney. president mazzucco: is there public comment regarding line items 2 a, b, c and d. ms. growth. >> good evening, my name is barbara growth, still a proud resident of san francisco before the taxes will possibly

squeeze the older people out from living in this fine city. i would like to request that everybody realizes that the police department was not born yesterday. they have been a very dedicated crew, even though i've got a rap sheet compliments of my ex-husband with his creative notification to the local district police station crew. because he happened to transfer there as a civilian employee. but i would think it would be very nice if we had retired police captains sitting in on the police commission instead of just lawyers who seem to feel they're smarter than the average everyday police officer. why is the police officer to be considered stupid just because he puts his life on the line for the public of this fine city? i don't understand that. i am a former police captain secretary and as such, i was

even made a nut cake. anybody can be made a nut cake. all it takes is money, honey. i didn't have it. so i'm a nut cake. that's so he could have the cheapest divorce in history. great. well, 34 1/2 years of marriage but whatever. i still think it would be nice if we had police administration sitting in on this panel instead of just lawyers so that we have police input not just civilians saying how stupid they are and that we need community policing. community policing, you got your average everyday citizen who wants to file a complaint because he didn't like getting a traffic citation, getting arrested, or whatever, having the right to file all sorts of complaints, they all can file their complaints, but the police should be in policing the police. it's all i think should be the idea of community policing.

they're not stupid. we've been around since the gold rush, 1849. this is not a new police department under any circumstances whatsoever. i was proud to have been working for the police department as a stenographer, secretary, doesn't mean i'm surprising the world but i did do my job. i came forth. started in the traffic bureau which has been dismantled lately, suddenly they're not important even though they're the first ones on any calamity or happening that took place in this city. suddenly they're not important. i don't understand that either. the police department was set up a long time ago and know what they're doing. they didn't suddenly turn stupid. thank you. >> hello, my name is tom

sellhorse, i'm back and have a couple comments. number one, community policing invites corruption. you have some community police in this city, particularly in the mission statement, chief, sir. the gay community liaison under lieutenant michelle jean particularly folks like sergeant chuck lambert who brags of being friends of some of the people in the community they're working on behalf of. that's not equal protection under the law when you defend some people's rights at the expense of other people's rights. that's number one. number who two, when you look at community policing is that another euphemism for different legal standards. there are certain communities, as you call them, that are treated as if they're special. the law doesn't apply to them or laws are applied differently to them. they have their own private police forces and community liaison who work on their behalf and brag about being their buddies. that's not equal protection under the law. that's illegal.

and finally, patrol specials who are another form of community policing. only they're private police hired by individuals secretly so that they know for whom they work and we don't. >> i've been doing research on them, some of them have been child molesters in the past. i had one recently who was going and hiring a hooker and you let him off. these patrol specials are criminals in some cases and you've had almost a year to respond to the patroler's report telling you that they should be out of business. how long is it going to take before we get some action on the patroler's report? those of us being victimized cannot wait any longer. it's taking too long. it's taken too long. former commissioner hammer is no longer here to apologize for them and commissioner dejesus isn't here tonight. you have a quorum. why don't you vote. thank you. president mazzucco: next speaker. >> commissioners, good evening. for the record, my name is emil

lawrence. very briefly, i was going to discuss the pros and cons i've been reading in the paper on the selection of the new police commissioner. i know the board of supervisors has selected a gay activist, claiming that the spot on the police commission is now a gay spot. i don't believe that's true. i think they should have picked the best man for the spot. i think a police officer was running for it and several other people were running for that spot. secondly, i have no objection of a gay person being on the commission. my problem is that the way it's set up now, that spot is always going to be allocated to some gay activist attorney and i don't think we need one. i think if we're going to have a gay person, we need a gay accountant. most of the commission just set up as boards of directors. there's no physical or monetary

accountability whatsoever from this board or this commission or most of the other commissions that are picked by both the board of supervisors and the mayor's office. and i've already run up against the san francisco tax commission with the civil service selected me three times in a row as the director's position where i was the only taxi driver in m.a. in accounting and corporate math, only to have gavin newsom bump me for an attorney from his inner office. it happened three times in a row. i think you need more accountants and less attorneys on these commissions or more laymen and less attorneys. and i think we don't need an activist who wants to change the constitution into his or her image. that's all i have to say on the matter. i thank you for your time.

president mazzucco: any further comment regarding these items. hearing none, public comment is closed. line item number 3, please. >> item 3 is public comment on all matters pertaining to item number 5 below, closed session disciplinary cases, and whether to hold number five in closed session. president mazzucco: any public comment in hearing the closed session items. hearing none. call item five. >> a vote on whether to hold item 5 in closed motion. >> so moved. >> second. pres president mazzucco: we still have a quorum. >> item number 6 is a vote to

elect whether to disclose any or all this kirsch -- discussion item five held in closed session. all in favor? before calling line item 7, next week, we will have our new commissioner present, who was approved by the board of supervisors. also an attorney. he will be here with us next week after he is sworn in. >> [inaudible] >> welcome. >> item 7 is adjournment. president mazzucco: do i have adjournment? so moved. we are adjourned. i went to cals

meeting of the ad hoc board of education for june 13, 2011, to

order, and if you could notes that the three members of the committee are present, commissioner of fewer, commissioner norton. we have four informational items on the agenda, and so, we are going to -- how do you want to do this? do you want to do of for you are short or three short presentations? do you want to do them all at the beginning? do you want to do that? >> yes, i think that would be great, commissioner. commissioner: ok. >> i have copies for the public, an idea of some eight copies. so the focus tonight, we wanted to give the board an update on the approach we are going to take to revise the attendance areas as well as the timeline and provide some feedback to a

couple of elements of the feeder patterns that were raised at prior meetings, particular transportation, and the order of the tiebreaker process, and then to talk about the monitoring of student assignment, just giving an overview of the scope of work that the advisers are helping us with and see of the board has any specific questions they would like us to explore in the annual report, and then the future meeting schedule, so the first couple, the first slide, is kind of a reminder of the guidelines of revising the elementary attendance areas that are in the board policy, so the board policy calls for staff on an annual basis to review the attendance area boundaries and make recommendations to the superintendent if any modifications are needed, and if the superintendent would modify -- notify the board, and in

reviewing the attendance areas, these were the factors that steps should take into consideration, the neighborhood demographics, where students live now and where changes are expected in the future, the availability of facilities, traffic patterns, the availability of programs, and the prekindergarten to 8. this was in p5-101. this was developed with working with demographers, and we gather data and got feedback from the community and evaluated that, and the board approve the elementary attendance areas, so it has been less than one year since these boundaries were approved by the board, so we think for the first annual review, we are recommending that

we look at how the number of kindergarten applicants from 2000 -- for 2011 compared to the number used when developing the boundaries, so when we were developing the boundaries, but the average number of kindergarten emesis residents, so we thought we should look to see that for those in attendance areas, is there was an attendance area that had 385 residents, that is so many poor grade, how many kindergarten applicants did we have, and what is the difference between the two, and then do them for all of the 58 attendance areas and then recommend any adjustments based on those findings, so if there are two attendance areas close together, and in one case, the number is greater, and in another, it is less, we would obviously explores ways to balance that. the second thing we would do is review suggestions from the community, and we have already

received as suggestions in particular to look at the mckinley boundaries and also looking at another, and what is important to remember is you just cannot adjust one attendance area, right? if you get a suggestion a just one area, it is also a suggestion to change another because it would be changing the boundary between two, and we also got some others, like near loma -- muir loma -- mira l;oma. we will look at the recommendations. there was a type of maybe in some of the documents that said 2010, so i just want to make sure that everyone understands we are talking about 2011, so in

the next two months, and if anyone wants to email specific suggestions and to meet and talk about it, they can send it to the email address, and we will about d. wade any suggestions that come in to that forum, as well. commissioner: can i just ask -- most of us got the same recommendations you got. because the suggestion said this, which i know to be true, the neighborhood and at 30th street, not 29th street, but here is a problem with that. if you just moved it one block and drew it on 30th street, then the southern side of the streets would be in the other, so what i'm interested in as an example is what we do about -- do we always run a line down the middle of the street, is my question, because it is an

interesting question. i mean, the issue of the kind of coherence of the neighborhood is a good question, but, of course, in that case, you'd want to draw it sort of between the backyards. >> so i think maybe these will help highlight house staff is going to vote all of the requests, and one is can the law to be consistently applied to all suggestions? so the suggestion to keep all of the neighborhoods together cannot be consistently applied. school district attendance areas. but it is definitely a factor that we look at where possible. we want to see how suggestion would impact the number of kindergarten residents, and speaking of one, it would make it bigger, and there is already a concern that it is already too big, so we will look at the impact on the average number of residents. we also looked at how it would affect the diversity of each attendance area.

obviously, in this case, it would impact the attendance. just to the south. we would see it changing it would affect the size and diversity of enrolling. if it is making one bigger and one smaller, is that helping balance perfect and then the barriers. that is particularly pertinent to, for example, the valuation of the suggestion for rosa parks, because there is one that is a huge traffic pattern. so we have looked at but have not even begun to evaluate this suggestion is that we want to actually do the valuations at the same time and looked at all of these factors, and then based on that come back to the board and recommend revisions its provisions would have minimal impact or would improve the demographics and the balance of students in each attendance area and avoid topographical barriers and if the logic could be consistently applied, so we

will definitely look at all of the logic and avowedly everything that is suggested, and then we will oppose suggestions and staff findings on the web, so there would be an opportunity for people to see what we found from the revision, and then we would share a recommendations on the august 8 ad hoc committee meeting. et commissioner: i just want to clarify, and then commissioner norton has something. i appreciate this. analysis is always a good idea. however, none of those necessarily address the issue that was raised about álvaro. i am not advocating that we try to keep all neighborhoods in a coherent attendance area pattern. it is impossible, and you are right. not all neighborhoods have very clear boundaries, so when they are -- i just want to know where

in those principles can you take that into consideration, and will he report back to us on this issue, or have you already looked at that? of course, it is easier, and all of the attendance boundaries that i know what actually go down the street, the middle of -- street. people live on both sides of one street generally should go to the same school, unless it is during boulevard -- geary. >> we will look at that, and we can superimpose city boundaries on our boundaries and see where they change, and we can explore the difference between having the majority of our attendance areas are down the center. i think when we were doing it, there were a couple of exceptions, and they were actually an exception to keep city neighborhoods together, and

there was one, i think. at any rate, one of the revisions we made was looking at how we can do this to a-as best as possible, so where possible, we try to do that. we just cannot guarantee, so we will do it as part of the evaluation. commissioner: commissioner norton? commissioner norton: it seems to me that we want to look at what the pools were like. >> thank you. yes. the last part of this presentation tonight is actually specifically around monitoring, and one of the questions on there is what would the board like us to review as part of the process so that we can fall back in to see what impact that has,

so maybe we can maybe even go into more detail about that. commissioner norton: the composition seems to be part of it to me, too. if you can adjust a line and have a more diverse pool, that might be something we want to look at. >> that was in the original design and will continue to be as we look at suggestions, however impact, not just the size but also the demographics. thank you. commissioner: commissioner m urase?

commissioner murase: no. is very different from south, and you end up concentrating a particular group by using that line. >> ok, thank you. i will definitely. so we will plan to come back to the border with august 8 meeting using this process and timeline that we have just outlined, and the next section of the presentation is about. peters, and it is responding to two areas in particular that have come up, but just in case some of audience members are not familiar with the background, i thought i would take a second to provide some context. i think, in march 2010, the board approved a policy that

included the development of elementary feeder patterns for elementary schools to feed into particular middle schools, and there would be an initial assignment based on the process. in august, the staff recommended which would feed into which schools, and then in august and september, we received community feedback through lots of different forum s, and based on that, the substitute motion was presented by the superintendent, and that was to delay the feeder patterns for a year and to the interim year have a tie-breaker involving its siblings, so that is the process we use this year. in february, staph submitted revised kindergarten through eight feeders