investigation, so that was why the police commission proposed the practice of the names being run by the occ so please stay kayhan confirm a pending investigation. this did come up last year, and i mentioned it to the commission then, so i would request if it is going to be a policy that the police commission determined that so there is not an expectation if it is not your policy, because a courtesy is not the same thing as a policy or practice, is what i would propose.

>> may ask a copy of the list of officers who received the rewards, was that part of the package? >> yes, it was part of the package. that packet was received and now a few days before today's meeting, so that is what i would recommend for the future. good >> now i am confused. >> what i would recommend is before it is on the agenda that the list be provided so we can communicate to the department that there is an open investigation. >> those are two different things common because the awards committee considers this weeks ago. you get itself at the same time

as the rest of the commission. >> i am suggesting that is not enough time and information in advance of your meeting. it would seem to be more logical before it becomes public that this communication takes place. >> commissioner determined? >> just to clarify and piggyback, if there is an officer who makes this list, i do not think she is trying to take anything away from about officer, but at the same time, she is informing us there is an issue we should consider that may cause concern or not, so

once the committee finishes work, i am not saying to take anything away from the officer. edie's about presenting this to the occ, having them look over the list, and if they have questions and concerns, they can communicate that to the chief or the committee first, before it even comes to the commission for consideration. i do not think there is anything wrong with that. we do have a recognition from the commission, and i am not addressing any thing you are saying, commissioner slaughter. i am just trying to clarify that i think there is a step we

should add. i am not attacking anything that is done. i am not taking anything away from the valued officers. i think we owe it to the officers as well as members of the public as part of our duty to oversee the police department to add this extra step. that is all i am saying. >> there is an issue of employee reliability wrapped up in this, so i am wondering how we would take the good intentions without impinging on the rights to privacy for officers that are being considered or voted upon and the names coming out and what the possible outcome might be if there are officers identified after the committee has voted on them, but areas and

not standing o sec complaint, because it is my understanding that once the committee votes, the names are all out, and the universe essentially knows about it. i could be wrong about that, but i know this is a handout for tonight, so if after the list is made public there is a question brought up about certain individuals, i wonder how that would play out and what our thoughts are on that. >> i could not agree more. once the list is published and i received a list common -- i received the list, it is public, and i would not be able to speak to any officer about, this officer had a complaint. it would be something we would

talk about in advance of the agenda. >> thank you for the clarification. in terms of the committee and the vote, the officers after they walk out of the meeting, is there a discussion about who is voted on? does that become departmental knowledge? >> yes. >> that is my concern. once the vote occurs, names are fairly public unless there is a step taken to ensure confidentiality until the names have been cleared through occ and the commission. we need to look into a particular incident, then we would do that i assume in closed session? would that be appropriate? can you help us with this?

>> i would have to look of the specifics about whether you could have closed session to look at the employment of a police officer in this context. it is different from the role where you have a jurisdiction over the officer. i do not know that you would have legal grounds. >> would you be able to give us some guidance regarding how to handle all of the concerns in a way that satisfies our obligations towards privacy? >> i am more than happy to work with the chief to see if they have a proposal. i can look at the legality and come up with a proposal that would satisfy confidentiality that also addresses this request

to have access to names. >> if you can come back to us in a week or two, there is no rush, as there is not going to be a committee consideration for some time. >> you are back on the list. >> what happened when i first started as a director, before the names were put on the agenda, the secretary of police commission provided the names to me and asked are there any occ pending complaints. that was the communication that

took place, and we want to check and provide information, but it did proceed any thing in the agenda. once it is published, that is not a time for any input from the occ. >> there has never been a policy or procedure for disclosing the names, but if) as a courtesy and -- but it was done as a courtesy of. >> i am saying there was a practice, and i provided the information.

>> it became vetted before the meeting. >> i can tell this is a sensitive issue, and i know the police department's feelings about these rewards. they go into a session that is essentially closed session, and there is a lot of deliberation and back-and-forth, so this is something that belongs to the police department, but it does come back to the police commission to ratify, and there has been a prior practice of enticing you about the names. i think we need to talk about that, but i want to get a sense of agreement you're a good -- agreement. >> i have attended the awards

ceremony in the past. i recognize it. i honor it, so in whatever the commission decides for the future, i want to raise it so i can understand and my staff can understand what the expectation is and what the practice will be. >> is there anything further? >> just one other comment. thanks for bringing this to our attention. in the time you have been director of the occ, has a name ever come up? have we ever had to face someone who has voted who had outstanding complaints against the occ? how did we handle it?

the identification was made, and what procedurally followed? >> that is the practice. >> i understand, but the name comes up, and was that information shared with the rest of the commission? what happened procedurally after the identification was made? >> these three dates -- this predates my being the director in terms of there being a public identification. they have disclosed disciplinary

hearings to the public, but i am aware that since i have been the director, there have been awards given where there was a pending o sec investigation. >> very well. a lot has changed, and it is back in the city attorney's council. thank you. >> i would like the city attorney's suggestion they get together and have a conversation about what makes the most sense about the next round of awards, and since we have voted on this and it looks like a good list, we stick with it, and i am sure the director can come to an agreement about a long standing practice. >> commissioner kingsley, you keep speaking about completes an

-- complaint sclerosis, and -- about complaints plural. it is whether there is a complaint about an actual act, not whether you have complaints pending. >> thank you for clarifying. i did not know if it was in general or specific to the key event. >> is this a bit to the event. >> they did not get awards until four or five years down the line because of the commission, but they were awarded the eventually. >> thank you for clarifying. >> i want to add that there was an instance when officers did get gold medals, and that case was handled by the occ.

they are the ones who came forward and said what they gain we did what they did was a policy, but they did have evidence. the problem is it took a long time to do that, and that is one issue out there. officers should not wait for five years. the director is the one who took the bull by the warrants. -- the horns. >> there is a public list, and we have agreed on a process to move forward or a police to get the discussion going, so out of respect for the process, can we please leave vote -- re-a vote now? >> i think we are moving on.

we have had public comment. we have had significant commission comment. let's move to item five. >> item #5, election of conditions set officers. >> we have this on the calendar tonight. >> thank you, president. this came a few months ago, and we noted we have gotten off schedule, that we are supposed to be doing these elections every april, and i think we ought to do them a round april, but your election -- essentially, we forgot to do it in april. since then, and we have had a busy time on a commission

between the chief selection and now process and the mayor. it is my view that i would hope the commission will support keeping the correct slate of officers and your roles until april and only until april until we did do a more complete discussion curiosa -- discussion. we will have a new mayor who will have opinions. we will have a potentially new commissioners. my term is up in april. i do not know if i will be here next year or not, and most importantly, i appreciate the

way you guys have run meetings in an open and norway and made sure everybody's thoughts were hurt -- in an open way and made sure everybody's thoughts were hurt. if you guys are willing to serve, i would hope you would continue to serve as president and vice-president of the commission until may, at which point we will have a potentially new commissioners, and we can get back to our regular schedule. that is the motion i would make to continue. >> i would suggest we wait until she comes back.

she is not here. i suggest we continue this next week or a few weeks ago. since this is our officers for our commission, we want to make sure the commission is fully present. >> that is part of the reason we never had elections. we kept putting it off and putting it off for one reason or another. they never came around because we always postponed, not having a full commission even though it was four or five. >> anything further?

>> the only thing i have to say is a believes there is a motion. >> my second the motion. >> the use second demotion? >> yes. -- use second the motion? >> yes. >> the suggestion but we delay the vote for a week, and whether we -- i would like to get a sense from the commission. i appreciate the importance of this vote, whether it is symbolic or not, that we are setting our officers for the next few months commo.

unless the vote is close, i am not sure it makes a lot of difference, but i have not heard anyone weigh in on whether they thought we should delay. i appreciate what dr. marshall said. let's get this done, so my view is, let's get it done, but if folks want to delay it, i am not going to stand in the way, but i have a feeling we should push forward and get our agenda moving and get back to the work of overseeing the department and not just ourselves. >> that is a good point, but at the same time, i have no issue with the current leadership of the commission, and i wanted to call to order there was a motion to go one way or the other, but

at the same time, this is something that for some reason was important to the commissioner, so i think we should let her way in, and there are some reasons perhaps we should discuss. i think we should let her say it, especially since she put the item on our agenda. >> i am fine with that. i am trying to figure out who is not going to be here next week. i know i am not going to be here. do we have a disciplinary matter next week? >> the week after. >> is anybody not going to be

there next week? >> that is a critical question, and i might not be here next week, but i might be able to come for this matter, but i have another commitment. >> i have a suggestion. since it looks like the motion was to continue these elections until next year, and we are not in a mad rush. if we do decide to vote yes, why don't we come to respect to the secretary to see which commissioners are attending and schedule it for that day. the following meeting could be three weeks from now, but if this motion passes, it is not urgent. >> i do appreciate the nomination. i appreciate you want to be part of this, and i also understand the realities that it is not always possible to have all seven of us here at the same time, so one suggestion is to

take this off the calendar, and if the commission feels the need to add it back to the calendar if there is some concern we should change it, so it is effectively keeping it open, not blocking it until may 30. >> can i make my own motion? >> i think i will withdraw my own motion. >> your motion is seconded. the motion is that this matter should be taken off calendar in definitely, and at some point the commission can and get back to the calendar, and made 30 we should have a new election. we did not get voted until october, because the issue was we never had a enough people. now the best suggestion i think is to take it off the calendar.

>> i second your motion. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> public comment? hearing none, thank you. i apologize for coming up with the solution. >> that is your job. >> item #6, public comment on all items pertaining to item number eight. and a vote whether or not to hold the following items in closed session. >> these matters protect the supreme court decision. any public comments regarding closed session to deal with disciplinary matters? during none, public comments are now closed. please call the next item. >> item #7 is a vote whether to hold item 8 in closed session. >>

>> item #nine. first, roll call. we have of a quorum of commissioners. yet item number nine, a vote on whether to disclose any or all discussion. >> public comment? hearing none. next item. >> adjournment. i would like to adjourn in memory of captain ross go. my father served under captain ross perot for many assignments, and he was a gentleman -- capt. roscoe for many assignments, and he was a gentleman, so i

moving we adjourn in honor of capt. roscoe. >> we are adjourned. >> hello. welcome to "culturewire." we are here today with bay area artist jody chanel, and we are here to see the plaza where your piece has just been installed. >> i have been doing large-scale paintings in the galleries and museums, and the idea that in the future, i could do something that would hang out a little bit longer than the duration of the installation the kind of appeal to me. i quickly found out about the san francisco arts commission school and realized there was a

pre-qualified school you had to apply to, so i applied to the. >> how long did it take you to develop this work for the plaza? >> this was a fast track project. design development was about a month. >> let's look at the beautiful mural. i have never seen a mural created on asphalt. >> the heat of the asphalt, a new layer of asphalt. then, these wire rope templates that were fabricated for the line work get laid down and literally stamped into the asphalt, and then everything was hand-painted. >> maybe you could talk about some of the symbolism, maybe starting in the middle and working out. >> [inaudible]

the flower of industry. >> it is like a compass. there's an arrow pointing north. >> within the great bear consolation, there are two pointed stars here. they typically lead one to the northstar, otherwise known as polaris. so i thought it has a layer of theme. >> let's talk about some of the other elements in the peace. we are walking along, and there is a weather vane. there's a sweet little bird hanging on the side. what kind of bird is that? >> [inaudible] the smallest of the gulf species, and it lives around the bay area. >> you want to talk about the types of flour patterns that you send? >> [inaudible] around 1926 or so by the