nightclub violence, not that it is not possible, but it has not been a problem of late. i think the clubs are policing themselves better. i think a lot of the conditions being put upon the clubs have been affected. i met with the entertainment commission, and then at the entertainment commission summoned about using some officers in a district sort of fashion for the outside of the clubs, and then some of the automatics, like violence inside the club, that gets you a closure the next night. that seems to have been affected. again, with the numbers of people that we draw from every corridor of the bay area, we do not always of every time we have a big evening here in the city, and most weekends are a big evenings, but i think that the measures we have put in place have been better at improving the situation dramatically, so i

am happy to report back on things that are in place, things that are different, things that have been done, but i think the fact that it has been done lately, and by lely my three months and a couple of months before that. vice president marshall: a lot of these, i do not have a problem moving into a different tier. >> we were not really able to execute that, so that is something we did what to do. >> community policing, we are doing that right now. >> you will have a community policing general order. we are in the middle of our meetings. one at the central district. anyway, they are weekly.

we already have been in the bayview in the mission, and now we have one in the central. i believe we have one in the western addition, and then we have another one in the terrev el. we are on schedule to have that to you for consideration. >> we remain on the top tier then. i think i know what this means. the ongoing concern about a possible reduction of sworn officers we talk about it, but i do not know how to address it. what would you want to do with it? >> i know we have a succession plan it will all depend on the

budget. >> i guess the issue for me would be doing this so we can address them, so i am looking at these that we would calendar first and foremost, i guess. i guess this is an ongoing review of things. >> that is always going to bubble up to the top as we go into budget season. what i would do, and hopefully with the support of the commission, we will work with the board and the mayor's office as much as possible to try to get a minimum of three classes. vice president marshall: it seems that is always there, but i do not know how we would

address it in some sort of formal way. what are your thoughts? commissioner: when the budget occurs, obviously, but as we go on, in between budgeting times, you mention that we have a succession plan put together? >> provided we get a minimum of three classes per year. i think we can hold the line, as it were, but we went to see an officer that was retiring, and he is 11 months senior to me in the police department, but we have six academy classes between us, which means in 1981, we hired six academy classes, and that when on problem for a period of four or five years. all of those officers are going to leave. some of them have obviously left

over time, but it is hard to replace six academy classes for a five-year period when they all get to the end, unless you're hiring three to five classes to make up for those officers leaving. vice president marshall note -- marshall: i guess we can leave it there. i do not know how to a particular address that one. unless somebody else? moving to the second tier, i do not see -- brady 2. >> what this is referencing is that there was a bureau order that was last year to respond to the brady concerns. a lot of police departments do not have a brady policy, and we need to review the order, see how it is doing, and consider

turning it into a department order, because the brady order is temporary, and we should probably have a more permanent brady policy. we are going to work on that. i do not think there was much work done. commissioner: and if i remember, the department wanted to see how the new was working, and then tweak it in the direction of a dgo. >> i do know that there has been at least one appealed and overturned create it is possible that we need to sort of recovery what is appropriate in the way of brady letters, and, again, the judge is so knowledgeable on these things, having been a prior supreme court justice that

he is probably the best to tell us on how the things we are doing, and i think we're pretty much all up to speed on brady letters, but now, some of the letters are being appealed and overturned. maybe the pendulum has swung a little bit too far, and we just need to reach calibrate, so we know that we are appropriately sending brady letters to those people who should get them, versus sending them out wholesale, because i know it is a big deal to officers in how they go forward in the rest of their import after they have gotten a brady letter, and it is hard to un-ring that bell. >> it looks like we definitely need the judge's opinion and then a department general order.

this is for each of the relevant parties, so this is something that the commission should be doing within our realm of work. commissioner: would this be something with the jurisdiction of the department to meet with judge lowe? >> sometimes the commission is involved, and there will be a subcommittee or one or two people who will get involved in writing the dgo. it is up to us how involved we went to get, but it does, at the end of the day, and up in our laps. my personal opinion is the more involved we are in the process, the more informed we are, so the really important dgo's, we are more involved in the process.

vice president marshall: should we leave it on this tier? >> i think so. vice president marshall: the next, i do not know what it was supposed to result in. where are we with this one? commissioner: as i remember, commissioner hammer had partially brought this up. this was informing them of their rights and the procedures involved, and -- vice president marshall: i remember. we had a pretty heavy presentation on it. commissioner: because we do not

have commissioner jim hammer here, to see if there is any backlog, we need to stay on top of it to make sure that it continues on into the future. it could possibly be on the third year, asking for an update quarterly, for example -- it can be on the third tier. vice president marshall: then we can take off. i would not mind taking it off completely, because we have had a presentation on it, and we have the ability to have a report on it. these are my thoughts. >> this is where i was kind of coming from in terms of systematically deciding which departments or programs or systems within the department that we would get systematically, and within that

kind of approach, it would take one year, two years, however long, but something like this, and follow-up would come up within systematic review hi. that is what i would agree to take off. a priority for the next 12 months, but have that instead moved to something that we want to systematically lepidote, at some period of time. commission: after we take the action to follow through with their initial investigation and monitoring, then we can remove it. i really want us to finish our work and have a system to make sure this does not end up back in to higher priorities before we completely remove it. commissioner: you do not feel

comfortable that we have gotten the information? commissioner but -- commissioner: know. i think we just need to follow through. vice president marshall: the second tier? commissioner picking: -- commissioner: second or third. vice president marshall: i do not remember who brought that up. commissioner: they are dealing with this since this happened

to improve responses, we will monitor and see if we can close the loop before we move it. vice president marshall: tier. >> i did, since we haven't done a ton of work around this, i would remove it from the third until we do a little more work on it. >> you're saying it was third and second? >> in both second and third. just remove it from third. and the reason why -- the department has done a lot of work around this. we haven't necessarily done a lot of work to see where the department is on this.

i would just delete it from the third line from the bottom, domestic violence third tier. >> ok. let's go to third tier, which is breach of confidentiality. i don't know what that was about. anybody remember? >> that was in response to a specific case where it looks like an officer disciplinary matter was leaked to the public. the question coming from at least one of our commissioners was who is looking that and violating the copely decision. >> i think we dealt with that, right? >> i would just check in with that, commissioner. i think it was commissioner dejesus before we remove it. >> that's why you have all of the commissioners here. everyone has their one. i hope you're keeping up with this. and then we have the reviews of the chief of police and o.c.c.

director. >> what time of year is that usually done? what has been the practice of the commission in the past, mr. president? president mazzucco: that's a good question. whenever we calendar it. that wasn't necessarily the end of the calendar year or end of the fiscal year. just whenever we calendar it and i don't remember it happening -- i think we have done that off more than on. >> yes. >> and you tend to submit yours. >> i submit mine president mazzucco: >> yes. >> i do. >> director hicks, do you have a particular date or month that you -- that you have calendared that you typically do that? >> in the next few months you are due one from me. started in november of 2007,

seems that within about a year, you reviewed my performance. so you have reviewed my performance twice as a commission. >> well, for consistency, why doesn't the commission decide what month each year, what week, whether it's the second weekend november, first week of october, whatever, but have a particular -- either week or month that we consistently will do these two reviews. and if there is a change in staffing, that obviously might dictate changing it a bit. we have a new chief this year that's only been on the job for a few months. and as a commission, i think it serves the public well and our

jobs well and people that are working hard and doing their jobs well, if we have some consistency and we decide when we're going to do it and go ahead and make sure we perform that responsibility. president mazzucco: if we did, it wouldn't even be on a tier. it would just trigger, so it shouldn't be on a tier. i guess the real issue is deciding when we're going to do it, so we should probably -- that probably will be here to decide when. >> mr. president, don't you think since that's a fairly easy thing to do in terms of just setting what month or a week, i mean we're not -- everybody agrees we need to do it. it's just a matter of setting some sort of time frame. perhaps we can get that much done tonight? president mazzucco: i was going to ask in december but at the end of the year.

somebody else have a better suggestion. >> that's a great idea. that's fine. >> or the end of mid-november or something before the holidays start because then when we have holiday events, and participation may be, you know, off. so we can move it just a little bit to either beginning of november or mid--november. >> that's fine. president mazzucco: end of the year, whenever that is. we'll look at the calendar and figure it out. >> and with that be -- i think it probably would behoove us to stagger the two reviews and sense the chief just came on, we could use his -- the annual date for his and -- and then for commissioner -- for director hicks, perhaps the mid-november. any comments from the director?

president mazzucco: she's ready to go. >> does that work for you? president mazzucco: she can probably do it next week. >> mid-april for the chief and mid-november for the director. >> thank you. that's fine. i coincide with my anniversary date with the city and -- and i already have a template that i use which is the city's template, and i provide a draft evaluation to you in advance of the actual meeting for you all to comment on. and then comments are incorporated after the evaluation and it's signed by the president of the commission. president mazzucco: >> i think what was suggested

was november and mid-april. president mazzucco: surveillance, racial profile something >> it had to do with the south asian muslim community and at the big hearing we had the human rights commission and i think that's still dangling work if you want to amend the general department order regarding racial profiling to include additional categories and if we want to do about switching to a portland model. >> to update you, there is no portland resolution. that was never signed off on. we were trying to get it so we could model it and apparently, the assistant u.s. attorney that signed off on it wasn't authorized to do so, has since been transferred and i met with teresa sparks and human rights commission attorney the other day and we tightened up a lot of the language on the bureau order

. we will be giving them that back and if that's to their satisfaction, that will close the book on -- close the loop on that for us absent the aclu being able to get some sort of resolution with the f.b.i. because they are the controller of the national m.o.u. >> i would say until that work is done, we leave it just on the third tier. president mazzucco: commission staffing, we try but -- >> in the process of trying very, very hard to get -- this is for a court clerk to help with our docket of disciplinary matters, to help us with managing that, we then reduced our docket so we could continue on searching for the court clerk but right now we don't have a strong need for it. president mazzucco: can stay because you're still looking? >> it can stay because we're still looking. that's fine. >> isn't there a need just in general for a clerk in the office to help out or no?

lieutenant -- >> more help would be appreciated but -- talk to some of the people involved, they say court clerk first and if not, a separate clerk. >> given that need, we will keep it on there. president mazzucco: i think we've taken care of the next one, from a moving vehicle. that can come off. i don't remember why cannabis was on there. i don't know who put that one on. >> need to check with commissioner dejesus on that one. president mazzucco: i couple of thoughts after going through this list, i can see how this happened when you're at a retreat, you do these things. i'm looking back at the retreat and you get the brainstorming lists. my first thought is we have too many things on the list. as much as i might have felt about the tiers at that point, i'm not particularly fond of them right now. that's just me. my thought is, let's fix four,

five priority areas, go after those, get those done and move on to something else. haven't reviewed the list in months. looking at this, i'm not as fond of the tier as i was then, particularly saying how they played out in practice. those memory thoughts. that's -- if you're asking me now, i would rather pick four, five various for us to tackle and get those done and move on to another four or five. that's my thoughts after going through this. >> prps we could choose three or four items on this list, regardless of -- president mazzucco: something that's not on the list. >> that's right. or something not on the list and should those three, four items become the red top tier list and then take the other items that fall below that and decide where we want to fit them in, in the year. maybe they will be three months down or something rather than if

we do want to -- president mazzucco: let me tell you the reason i was saying this, the commission doesn't seem to operate long range. seems to operate short range. even to have things on second or third tier, don't know that we actually get to them. so -- >> that's the point. mr. president, that's why the conversation is tonight so we maybe can calendar long term so we do get to them. for example, as we go through spells where we aren't pressed with many matters. we can have this already built in so that we are addressing all of the things that we want to address and need to address. >> really, waiting for a back a

report on -- a report where we stand. >> those should be taken off this list and put into a separate list as to a report back to the commission and find out exactly what still needs to be done. if that reporting shows that there are items that we need to cover, that i'm more than glad to put them back on the list. but it would seem the department or other areas are being covered and so that would be the primary area that we need to find out what is being done, what still needs to be done. >> so it looks like we need to add a time line section and a to-do section as to what needs to be done. so add that. i would add actually who's supposed to do what if we were to get that specific because a

lot of times things don't get done because someone didn't take ownership of it. add that on too.s0 before we're done with this discussion, i want to make sure i recommend and push very hard for us to include in our top tier mental health, improving mental health and counseling services for officers. we discussed that last week. i did say i would bring it up again. i would find it very hard for anyone here to disagree, including that as a top priority, given what we have seen in terms of need for officers and i ask you continue doing this as soon as september 7 or 14th to a followup to our presentation on what steps we can take to support improvement in that area. president mazzucco: before we go to schedule, let's see what we want to add to the list in general. you're suggesting we adamantal health -- >> improving mental health and counseling services for officers. what we need to do is look at best practices, consider the recommendations coming from mary dunnigan and take action to actually implement something to

improve that process. president mazzucco: and you're suggesting to put that in the top tier? >> i would say within the top tier dorks it in september and assign that to president mazzucco, myself and whoever else is interested. president mazzucco: anything else anyone else thinks should be added in general to this list? first, top, second or third. >> added or emphasized? i don't want to add anything but i want -- president mazzucco: this is just add because she added something. so -- >> so for adding, if you're just on adding rather thadge emphasizing -- than emphasizing, i would like to see us add a systematic long term review of programs, departments, within the department and o.c.c. president mazzucco: where would you like to add that? >> i think it's -- i think it

would go on the time line -- i think the particular programs or departments, that, that would be something that the director or chief could help determine best. and part of it is for the general communication of the commissioners and public to understand the different departments but also to review the perf report that was done a couple of years ago and keep that in mind as we look at particular divisions. ton go from there. i think what prompts some of this is with the history of the department, there are crises that pop up every few years and this year we had the cameras, the resident hotels, you know,

that issue come up. and this would be an attempt for everybody to go through kind of a systematic look, understand how things are operating and with the objective to try to overt some of the crises that do come up from time to time. as well as to educate us and to look at policies that are in existence and have everybody kind of focus on it and see if there's any tweaking that's needed. president mazzucco: ok. i don't know exactly how to put that on here. my paper is all marked up. i guess a fundamental question for me is, just looking at the p