i should reported this on the last item. on october 13, i will be attending the police chiefs lgbt forum on hate crimes. it will be october 14 at the lgbt center. i am sorry for the awkwardness of when the announcement came, but i apologize. i apologize for the awkward this, and not for going to the event. commissioner kingsley: with the showing of the concerns of the community, i would like to see the commission grapple with this, not necessarily with a particular action item of a resolution or an action item, but at least have a discussion among commissioners.

i have questions. each time this comes up, there are questions that are raised. if nothing else, to bring some clarity around the fbi, their role, the interplay, and how we can convey adequately to the public the distinction of the role, you know, some education on it. we need to grapple with this issue more. and not necessarily with a deadline around taking action, but a deadline soon in terms of the calendaring a discussion around this so that we can discuss what types of action we should be considering. commissioner turman: my comments are not directed towards the jttf. i agree with commissioner

kingsley. for us to have a further discussion amongst ourselves and particularly with a question and answer session, we should be thinking about what we currently have. is there a way to improve that? have a question and answer session with the chief, with the attorneys from the aclu, and at some particular questions to think if we can improve what we have in place. that may be the case, that may not be the case. i disagree with the statement was made by one of the members of the public. although i respect what she had to say, that last week no one here demonstrated that we understand the issues. we clearly understand the issues that have been discussing them for quite some time. i was not on the police commission, but i was a participant on the human rights

commission and there was only one day between my appointment and coming here. we understand the issues. we need to talk and discuss things. we need to start thinking on our own about what is in place and if we need to approve on that. how can we improve upon that? we put the question is directed to the folks who think they have the answers to how we should be acting. i agree with commissioner slaughter. we are not portland. there are different characteristics and different views. we are san francisco. we are proud to be san francisco. i am particularly outraged at any situation of racial profiling. i have been a victim of racial profiling on several levels. i am more than willing to have the discussion. more than willing to look into a solution. more than willing to look into what we have. let's calendar that.

if we can. in and bring to the table what we think should be done and bring folks here and question them. president mazzucco: who would we question? commissioner turman: the chief, members of the aclu, other solutions we might want to add. vice president marshall: my biggest concern is that we are having discussions and i have had them anyway. this was a discussion tonight about an item that was on the agenda. we have passed a couple of times. we have a couple commissioners working on it. if we want to hear back from then, that is fine. we had a couple of discussions to find out the abc's of this thing. if we want to have a discussion, that is fine. i would like to hear back from

those left taken a lead on this. i would not want to patronize them. i think that would finally be a good thing. i would like to -- i would like your opinion, commissioner turman, but as you are taking the lead on this. we are doing it anyway, so we might as well do it right. commissioner slaughter: i agree with all the suddenness that have been expressed for it we should schedule this for discussion as someone to. it may or may not ever be perfect to have a single action item, but the next week, we have had our first serious one-on-one sit down with mr. crrew and ms.

duval. i do not have a specific date but i agree we should get it on the calendar in the next couple of weeks for discussion. i am sure mr. krug will be here to answer questions if you have them. who will make sure the chief is available that date. i can present, at that time, what i have learned a, what my views are, and i can answer questions from fellow commissioners and we can decide whether we want to do something for. i am not sure -- let's get it on as soon as we can. president mazzucco: i am about to volunteer commissioner determined to work with commissioner slaughter on this issue based on your prior experience. commissioner turman: i would be happy to. i have engaged in e-mail discussions with mr. crew and ms. duval. vice president marshall:

traditionally, what we have done is let people are familiar with these issues say they are ready. president mazzucco: that is what we need to do. i will continue to work with both of you. we need to address the question and how we get it on the agenda. i think we need to continue to work with mr crew and ms duval. i do not think we are ready to calendar something tonight. commissioner turman: i am ready when you are ready. commissioner chan: thank you for taking the time to answer this question. president mazzucco: now it is time for public comment on items 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d.

>> i want to respond to what commissioner kingsley had said about our reach to the community and president mazzucco mentioned we have the outreach to deal with this activity. it is crucial that we act on it. we do not know whether the concerns that are being talked about here, the fbi will allow the occ to investigate those cases. i talk to you yesterday morning about a the incident. i have since given the authorization, she has not talked to the client. to describe the situation which as happened over the last month or two, a south asian man, a muslim, contacted by the inspector of the sfpd and says, "we just wanted to talk to. leaves a number, the individual calls back, and it is the fbi. they said that what the individual to come down and talk to us. he scheduled a meeting and after

reschedules the meeting, given what happens in the meetings, he calls an attorney and says he wants to be represented. the attorney then calls this sfpd inspector back and says, this gentleman is represented. we want to know what it is about. contact me. the inspector, is par for the course for the fbi, ignores that request. ignores the request for the attorney and independently call the gentleman back. this is the common tactic that the fbi is using. we do not know where those questions are going to go. this never happened. you have a viewer order that says you must comply with california law. that means that that inspectors should not be enrolled unless there is reasonable suspicion, some criminal predicate. what is happening in the voluntary interviews all over the country is they use these to gather information about your

beliefs, associations, with no criminal predicate. i have buried you with material to prove that fact. if that is what is going on here, that is a violation of your bureau order. i would also respectfully suggest that when someone in a non-urgent, non-criminally predicated situation context my attorney, not me, it is good community relations to respect that request. even though we do not have a traditional suspect. on your general order that says you treat everyone with courtesy and respect, you may want to not follow the fbi. we have talked to the fbi and they have told us, if we can do it, we are going to do it. the excuse we got initially was that we want to hear it from the client that they are going to assert their rights to an attorney. when i responded that the client send you a letter on his or her letterhead that he was represented, will you not

contact the person, not harass them, the fbi would not answer. those are not the kind of practices that the sfped should operate under. he asked me for advice. under our system, under the charter for the last 20 something years, accompli should be investigated by the occ independently. under your general orders, that officers today -- that officers should answer questions about the complaint. it may well be that during the course of that, the occ will say there is something there and it is not sustained. you have an mou that the fbi says -- president mazzucco: your time is up. i am sorry. vice president marshall: time is up. president mazzucco: next

speaker, please. thank you. the next speaker, please. any further public comment? , is closed. -- comment is closed. item #3. >> discussion and possible action to interpret into rules and procedures for patrol special officers and their assistance regarding ability to patrol special officer surge white to sponsor an application by an assistant patrol special officer. president mazzucco: could you tell us about this item? >> yes, we will do that. >> good evening commissioners. at the time, i was the interim in of the patrol specials and offered a memorandum. the reason why all for the

memorandum was because of the fact that i received an application for an assistant from serge white. i had prior knowledge that surge had the opportunity to work as a patrol special he had not completed the application in april. i made a phone call to him and ask him whether or not he was going to continue as a patrol special. his response that we did his response was that he was not going to continue. therefore, i put together a memorandum asking the question whether or not he could actually sponsor an assistant given his in eligibility. i forwarded the memorandum through a chain of command and hoped that i would receive an answer. unfortunately, the rules do not provide for this kind of service. president mazzucco: we will turn

to our city attorney with an opinion regarding this. >> commissioners, the rules are silent on this. there are a number of ambiguities on the rules. one is whether a patrol special is required to be armed. there is a requirement to qualify at the range. there is no requirement that they carry a gun. there is a little bit of ambiguity at the rules the way they are currently drafted. also, there is no requirement set in the rules about whether a patrol special has to be currently eligible to work as a patrol special as opposed to just being a beat owner. in order to sponsor a patrol special assistant. it is up to the commission to decide what it wants the rules to be or how the commission wants to interpret the rules. president mazzucco: if we follow

that line of logic, somebody could be a beat owner, who does not have the ability to operate as a patrol special officer? >> i think it is fair to read in the rules that, under the charter provisions for patrol specials, that you have to be a patrol special officer in order to be a beat owner. the rules also indicate that the patrol special must work his or her own beat some minimum amount of time. that is another issue with patrol special white. he may not be working his be because he has been unable to qualify at the range. like i said, the rules do not have any criteria for whether or not they patrol special officer has to be eligible to be working or otherwise eligible to own their beat in order to sponsor an assistant. president mazzucco: so any citizen can buy a beat and can

request a special assistance, which does not make any sense. >> they would have to purchase that with an application to be a patrol special officer. the issue here is, patrol special offers or white is not currently working his beak and is not eligible to be working his beat. does the commission 18 patrol special officer in those circumstances to be able to sponsor and hire an assistant to do some of the work for him on his seat? it is my understanding and the lieutenant can verify that patrol special officer white is not meeting several of the requirements under the interim rules. what is the requirement that he worked at least some amount of the beat himself, personally and. the other is the requirement that he qualify at the range. as i said, there is some

ambiguity in rules regarding a firearm requirements. the rules to require him to qualify at the range. the question is, given the fact that he has these factors that make him personally ineligible to working as a patrol special officer, and does the commission wants to allow him to sponsor people as assistance? vice president marshall: should he be a sponsor is what you are asking? >> correct. commissioner chan: you said it is reasonable to interpret that someone has to be a patrol special in order to on the beat. could you point us in the right direction of where that is? >> that would be from the charter language. the patrol special which is charter 4.217. commissioner chan: you have to be a patrol special to own at the beach. this officer is no longer a patrol special? president mazzucco: he did tell

me verbally that he has essentially resigned and is no longer going to work. in fact, the annual training started this weekend and he told me he is not going to be attending. >> when did he give you notice? president mazzucco: at the beginning of april. excuse me, august. commissioner slaughter: i do not have any bright ideas. [laughter] commissioner chan: one question and one comment. this is not directly related to this but it makes me concerned. we certainly have a lot of concerns about patrol specials and given the report we were given by the consulting group. at the same time, i want to make sure the department comport yourself well. i have noticed complaints about packets being missing in other

letters from patrol specials. i want to make sure that package are not displaced by the department and that we are doing everything right. do you know what happened with that and cannot be prevented in the future? >> i am aware of one a system that was in the process of being back grounded. i also discovered that the pocket that was provided was not complete because our department requires a post-certified background by a private investigator. this was a very cursory background was provided, there for the package was sent back to the sponsoring the owner. i know of no other applicants or transfers that are currently in the process. commissioner chan: it says that the packet was misplaced. >> we located it. i replicated it, just in case. however, in my piles of

paperwork, i located it and it was submitted prior to the second package. commissioner chan: just a very preliminary thought, based on what we talked about. it seems that if this patrol special officer is in fact resigned, it does not make sense to assign him an assistant to this beat until there is a new beat owner. president mazzucco: my concern is, who will collect the fees for this? if commissioner -- if patrol special white is collecting the fees, but he is resigning, who is collecting the fees? who does the necessary paper work in terms of payment, payroll, insurance. that is something that is missing in all of this. how can we have someone who is no longer supervising sponsors

someone who will go unsupervised? >> that is the question here. commissioner slaughter: i will give it a comment. i agree with commissioner chan. i will offer not nearly as specific as what was offered a, which is this. we continue to have concerned about how patrol specials operate and how we oversee them. i do not think we ought to be taking actions at this point that would make it easier for more patrol specials to be leaving the street. we want everything buttoned up in the exact way that we envision it. i think that means we do not interpreted this way to allow the transfer. i would certainly be -- it is my personal view that i am more comfortable doing it this way.

as i said, i do not think we ought to be going out of our way to find more patrols specials. president mazzucco: 11 motion? we will have some public comment first. public comment on this issue? >> commissioner slaughter, a man. i hate to say i told you so, but i told you so. this is the mess you by yourself and by wasting the last 57 weeks. i just got the patrollers report telling you to put these folks out of business. you do not even know about the laws they break on behalf of their clients. you are not aware -- you are not aware of what surge white did you victims such as myself who tried to raise concerns about freedom and about them following the law. actually following the law. they cannot handle the law, that is why they handle these patrol specials, these fake cops who worked with some of these community relations police

officers in likel chuck, hope, gary. in these people brady law. this is occurring every minute of every day. after breaking the law for the last six months and as you faure special assistant. chutzpah is there a middle name. thank you. commissioner chan: i have a resolution on less any commissioners have any other comments or thoughts. please correct me if i want to fit -- if you want to fix this. and ineligible patrol special officer cannot sponsor a new patrol special officer. i move that the answer is no. and ineligible officer cannot sponsor a new assistant. >> second. president mazzucco: can we have

a vote please? >> on the motion to answer no to the question of giving an ineligible patrol special assistant. president mazzucco: aye. vice president marshall: aye. commissioner chan: aye. commissioner kingsley: aye. commissioner slaughter: aye. commissioner turman: aye. >> the motion passes 6-0. vice president marshall: -- commissioner chan: is there any other further guidance needed or does that answer your question? >> he is the new program liaison for the department. >> good evening. i have been appointed to take

over the program. i have a lot of information from the lieutenant regarding what is needed. this has been a great resource. i am going to work with him so i get a full grasp of the program to make sure there are no inconsistencies -- these patrols specials are dealt with and i will do my best to keep on top of it. >> thank you. welcome. president mazzucco: line item #4 please. >> public comment on all matters pertaining to item 6 below, closed session, including public comment on vote whether to hold item 6 in closed session. president mazzucco: i have a script to read from the city attorney. this is a conference of legal counsel regarding the anticipated litigation against the city area the anticipated litigation is based on the following facts -- connolly was convicted of two of two people

in a drive-by shooting in 1989. he served 16 years in prison. in 2010, the supreme court granted his decision for writ of habeas corpus and granted a new trial. he cannot be retried because the important prosecution has died. he was released from prison and the city anticipates he may bring a lawsuit against the city seeking damages alleging wrongful conviction and incarceration. before we take public comment, i would like to turn this over to commissioner slaughter. commissioner slaughter: i have a conflict of interest. my law firm represents him and so i will not be participating in the discussion. just so there is no concern, i will be leaving the room. i will not be here. if anybody has any concerns, you can raise them in public comment

now. president mazzucco: is there any public comments regarding this item? seeing none, let's call the next item. >> item #5. a vote on whether to hold item 6 in closed session, including a vote on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege with regard to items 6d and 6e. have a motion? president mazzucco: we are now going to move into closed session.