an email addresses it to all board members, and the members start replying. they hit reply all, and then it becomes a discussion among a majority of members about an item that is within the board jurisdiction. that discussion is not taking place in public. the public does not know. today, we're not talking about public records, but i also wanted to remind you that when you use technology to communicate by email or by text or other means, even if you are using your own, personal device, if you are communicating about the public business, it is at least possible -- the lot is not very well developed on this issue, there have been a couple of cases, but we have not been given enough guidance yet, but it is possible that that could

be subject to disclosure. i want to make sure you are all aware of that. ok, so now we know what a meeting is. we can go on to public notice. of course, all of your public meetings have to be noticed, and your secretary is an expert in that in making sure that is done properly, and that notice includes your agenda, and you cannot act on any matter or discuss any matter that is not on your agenda. i think you all are well aware of this issue, and just a reminder, it includes discussion. an item that is not on your agenda. director: can i ask for a

clarification of the process? >> sure. director: for an item to be on the agenda. >> the way that that works is that your agendas are sent by the director of transportation and the president or the chairman of your board, who sets the agenda and decides when items will come before the board, so an individual board member does not have the authority to command that a certain item appeared on the agenda at a certain time. that is how the process works. president nolan: but as often happens, and during comments, as director brinkman did, that is -- >> that is ok, because you are hearing from the board, know

what items the individual members went on, and you are discussing it with the director, especially if it requires some kind of staff action or staff report. you are making sure. you are doing that in your function as a chair as administrative matter to make sure that everything can come before the board in due course. and there is no problem with individual board members stating what they would like to have on the agenda, telling the executive director, that they would like to have something on the agenda, asking the chair to place it on the agenda. that is perfectly fine. that is what you do. there are some exceptions to the rule about not discussing items on the agenda. they are extremely rare, but there are some in emergencies. you sometimes will be able to discuss matters that are not on the agenda.

of course, our office would be giving you advice about this. i have been in this office for 22 years, and i think the only time i have ever seen this happen was after loma prieta. and this goes back to your question, about not discussing items on the agenda. it does not prevent people from asking to put something on a future agenda, from a board member following up on public comment, for asking for clarification about what their concern is, a public common with the reference to staff or other resources or asking staff to report back on something that a member of the public is commenting about. so one of the other tenants for

public meetings is that the public has a right to comment at all public meetings. they have the right to comment anonymously. your secretary asks for people to provide a speaker card, and that is fine, but if the speaker does not want to fill a speaker card, they have a right to address you. they have the right to criticize the policy body, criticize members of the policy body, to criticize staff. again, they need to keep on topic. and they do not have the right to discriminate against members of staff, make discriminatory comments. that, again, is a matter that the deputy who is present would be advising about if you got into a situation like that. speakers have a right to equal time. you must give speakers equal time on the particular item, and speakers have the right to

translation. the members of the public that do not speak english have a right to have their comments translated, and one more point of clarification because we have had that come up a bit, our understanding is, for example, if we are giving three minutes of public comment, and the person needs translation, it is three minutes for their comments and three minutes from the transmitter, but if they are translating their own comments, it is a total of three minutes. >> i think that is right, click. >> madam chair, three minutes for the speaker, and then i do not time and all the translator. >> the limits on public comment, speakers have up to three minutes on an item. i know you are all familiar with this. sometimes you get less for everybody. they do not have the right to

speak off topic or to discuss other meetings. they do not have the right to a response from the board or staff members. that is absolutely discretionary. and they do not have the right to discriminate against city staff. >> can i? so the no right to speak off topic, sometimes in a meeting we have some guy talking about steve jobs, just going off, and there was another person who came up and sang a song in the past, and i am wondering -- i understand that they do not have the right to do that so to speak, but i am just curious as to how we should be handling those things in the future because i also want to encourage a sense of discipline from within this room, and i am wondering -- >>

president nolan: the singer, i understand that he addresses the board, and it is topical. i had someone injected it from the room by sheriff's because he just would not stop. it was a very tense situation. in the event that it was kind of widespread and people would not respect that, we have the ability as in the chair to ask for a recess and actually clear the room, but you have to allow them back in, is my understanding, there may be only a few at a time. >> yes, and i have definitely seen that happen. it can be quite effective.

it can be really effective to recess the room, to allow people to calm down, to tell people that you want to go on to the meeting and that you want to hear from them and that you do not want them to shots of the people can be heard. i have seen that on more than a few occasions. i have never seen a chair just let a few people back in at a time, but our office has advised that you can do that if it is absolutely necessary. president nolan: there is something that takes their 2 billion minutes, and they are speaking about something that is fairly jermaine, it is sometimes easier to let them finish. director: maybe some directors do not like that so much.

>> that is what i have seen cheers do, interrupt the speaker and say this is the topic, or we are on this item. you can comment on this item, or we are in general public comment. do you have something to say about things that are under our jurisdiction, and generally that leads to it. you do have a situation sometimes where people for whatever reason, maybe because of a mental disability, really cannot stay on topic, and i think years handle it in different ways. director: i have been thinking that you have done a good job so far , so the thank you.

president nolan: we had a meeting before the was almost seven hours long. >> the policy body has to meet in public, and you are allowed to meet in closed sessions in very limited circumstances. personnel matters, pending litigation, labor negotiations, realistic negotiations. there are a few others that occur from time to time. in terms of closed session, one of the most important things to know is that although some actions that you have taken must be disclosed when you return to open session, and, of course, the board votes after every closed session about whether it wants to disclose the closed session. in general, the closed session

is confidential, and if the board has voted to not disclose, then the material, what was said, is confidential, and it is a violation of state law for individual board members to disclose the closed session discussion. president nolan: have you ever seen in 22 years someone disclose it? >> no, i had never seen the city go after someone. director: what is it that allows us to all go to something like

the recent streetcar presentation? >> if it is open to the public, maybe a public meeting, but it is not your public meeting. it is the meeting of a state board or a federal board, it is a ceremonial gathering or other gatherings, or even a social gathering that is not put on by you, that is not, for example, a christmas party. it happened to be in your circle, and more than a majority showed up. the important thing to remember there is not using that gathering as an opportunity without thinking about it to talk about things that are under your jurisdiction. thank you.

president nolan: not coming to my house for christmas. secretary boomer: some members of the public that when it to discuss with you, but seeing we have no closed session. president nolan: do we need a motion to adjourn? so moved. we are adjourned. ♪

>> prop f we change the registration, filing, and fee requirements for campaign consultants. under the city's campaign consultants ordinance, campaign consultants working on local campaigns must register with the city's ethics commission and file periodic reports. prop f would redefine a campaign consultant to mean any individual who earns at least $5,000, instead of the current $1,000, for campaign consulting services within a 12-month time span. require that campaign consultants file reports monthly, instead of quarterly reports. other is the commission to require electronic filing of all required information instead of paper reports. and finally, and the fees payable to the city for they no longer depend on the number of clients. it would also allow the city to change any of the campaign

consultant ordinances requirements without further voter approval. ♪ president mazzucco: if you could please stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> one nation under god, with liberty and justice for all.

president -- secretary: thank you, we will be calling the world. president mazzucco, vice president marshall, commissioner chan. president, you have a quorum. we have the police department. >> thank you very much, lieutenant falvey. can you please call line item number one, the consent calendar? secretary falvey: item number one, the consent calendar to accept a donation of $1 million from mrs. karen firem.

president mazzucco: this is a $1,000 donation. we have a memo from the sergeant in the packet. any questions? commissioner: move to except. president mazzucco: anyone? next item. secretary falvey: the third quarter report. president mazzucco: any questions? commissioner chan: it looks like there is a lot left to be done, as always. i wanted to ask if he were to prioritize one or two of these

issues or three of them, what would they be? how can we be supportive? >> yes, commissioner chan. someone is in the audience, and she will give you a brief presentation about priorities that the occ things is important. >> kddi, present -- good evening, president mazzucco. the list is 20 outstanding recommendations as well as the general order revision. i would say most certainly a priority is to have a presentation to the commission of 5.05, which is the general order. we met with chief suhr last

month to go over the list and to ask him to also prioritize, so we are in discussion about how to move this forward, so i would say that is one of the agency's no. 1 priorities. in terms of the occ recommendations, our main priorities concerning language access, concerning juveniles as well as officer-involved shootings and mental-health, and some of those we have moved forward on, but many of them are still outstanding, and we look forward to working with the department to implement them as soon as possible. president mazzucco: thank you. anyone? >> good evening, commissioners. questions, if you have any? president mazzucco: any other questions? commissioner chan: with the

follow-up, i know you probably summarized this, but where we are with this general order. >> 5.05 is with the command staff, and they are in conversations with the city attorney's office. commissioner chan: is that the end could >> it is still in discussion. commissioner chan: what is the time line? >> i do not have one. i have spoken to ms. porter at the city attorney's office and my commanding officer, and neither of them can give me a date. commissioner chan: i understand, i understand. i am just asking. i sensed from reading that this was a high issue and just wanted to know where we were.

president mazzucco: chief, do you have anything to add? >> i would like to move it forward. commissioner chan: ok. president mazzucco: may i have a motion? please call item no. 2. secretary falvey: item number two, general public comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission on items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. spiegel's -- speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole. individual police or occ personnel should refrain entering into any debates. public comment is limited to three minutes.

president mazzucco: ladies and gentlemen, it is time for public comment. it looks like you are it tonight. >> good evening, commissioners and chief. it is time to compliment you and tip my hat to you. there was an article released about terminating four officers, and some retired. whatever. we are not going to get into the details, but that shows a stronger oversight committee. strong. seven officers gone in a year or so. that is because we have people like you, the chief. it is a very small percentage, a very small percentage. we have people like you to keep an eye on us. thank you so much. president mazzucco: next speaker? seeing none, please call item no. 3.

general public comment is closed. secretary falvey: i number three, reports and announcements, the chief's report. president mazzucco: how are you? >> we have been busy. we had a delegation from china. i was at the market opening a burger place. hopefully, this will all contribute to the reinvigoration of mid market and reduction of crime there. a good time was had by all on sunday, and then across, we went to the pet prided day. both events were very well attended. we attended a pumpkin patch in the mission. scare grovwe, which led to the fact that we had another very

quiet halloween. we had no street closures in the caster. i think it was all very well received on the television. people went, had a good time. there was a significant police presence, but it facilitated the crown on the sidewalk. we received tremendous cooperation from the community, the bars and restaurants, and again, we hope to continue that going forward. we took place in the great shakeout for the earthquake and went to some grammar schools, and then with regard to public safety related matters, i attended the major conference and the international association of chiefs of police conference with other members of the department in chicago, where we picked up, of best practices, middle of a lot of folks. we appreciate the commissioners

that will be able to attend. it was very well received. we went to the district council of merchants, the annual dinner, where they honored the police officer of the year for his work in the mission district. we got to go to the abc regional conference that was held, and we really, really appreciate all the help they give us on halloween and especially this year where we did our first alcohol at the breakers, and we participated in the taxi, a limousine, and paratransit's conference, and we also talked about taxes on patrol, any program that perhaps we can present to you in the next commission meetings, where we're going to have all of those extra eyes and ears out there that drive cabs in the city that are willing to participate in the program, and lastly, last evening, a commander and i

presented the civil grand jury on basically the state of the police department and to questions from about 20 members of the civil grand jury. crime, violent crime remains down about 6%, 13% over this reporting period. property crime is down 27% this last reporting period. total part one crimes down over 20%, and flat for the year, so we are still doing well with regard to violent crime and overall part one crime. more specifically, occupy san francisco is now in the back and forth phase to try to gain some compliance versus trying to exert some situations.

we have made some progress. we have a little bit of a moment last night where there was a certain amount of structural material, but we have gotten a tremendous amount of help from supervisor jane kim to get the understanding that we cannot have a pile or a built structure on the property. again, we continue to try to work with the group to make it as safe and sanitary as the city requires to not impact anyone else's rights or the situation. that is going forward, and then lastly, we have a very, very severe member-involved collision. i reach -- appreciate people that reached out. the body charged with overseeing them is not only your just for policy and discipline but also

cares about them as they do their job. at any rate, they were in response to a knife fight on 24th street on halloween night, and as they negotiated per toro, -- protero, it threw them into a spin, and they got wrapped around a telephone pole. all three offers, miraculously if you saw this collision, will all survive, i believe. one was discharged from the hospital the next day with stitches and a concussion. another one was, we believe, discharged today with your drum damage and a more severe concussion, and then an officer -- today with eardrum damage, and in more severe concussion, and another had a fractured skull and some bleeding on