i attended a department head meeting yesterday. as did the chief where the mayor outlined in a preliminary budget direction for next year's budget for 2012 and 2013 and 2013-2014. up until now the enterprise departments have been operating with a two-year budget and now general fund departments will be required to submit a two-year budget as well. the reduction target is 5%, each of the two years. in addition, a 2.5% contingency which carries forward to the second year as well. in addition, a 1% staff reduction per year for five years. at the end of five years, a 5%

staff reduction. there will be specific budget instruction provided to the department's. i think within the next few weeks. in addition to that, the occ will participate in outrage december 14. project homeless connect. we will staff a table there as we have done in the past. the event will take place between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. and that concludes my remarks. >> thank you. any questions or comments? thank you. you had a very detailed report last week. thank you. >> you're welcome. please call line item 3d.

>> the commission president's report followed by the commissioner's report. >> i have nothing further to report. a lot to think the chief for all their hard work this week that the department has been involved in. iambs -- glad some of the commissioners asked questions regarding overtime. there are concerned about officers being moved to handle occupy and it is a very delicate balancing. the chief is doing the best you can. anything you'd like to announce or say? >let's call line item 3d. >> commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for commission -- consideration at future commission meetings. the next regular meeting is january 4, 2012. we go dark for the last two

weeks of the month. commissioner kingsley. >> i heard commissioner marshall make a suggestion. >> there is a medal of valor ceremony. >> ok. i am on. our next regular meeting, january 4 which is about three weeks out. i would find it helpful if hearing the preliminary budget talks, if we could at that meeting get some preliminary thoughts from the department and the sec to help assess commissioners get our minds

around and focused on certain issues that your respective departments " like to share around the budget. and distinguishing this last year. we address the budget in two different meetings. it was up to the deadline. if we could have some discussion at our january 4 in a preliminary way, i would find it helpful and wonder how other commissioners feel about that. is this something that would find helpful as well? >> we were not prepared to give a thorough analysis of the budget. we really punted it. i would like us to understand what is going on with the budget. >> i agree. >> i see heads nodding positively. chief and director, that is ok with you in terms of the time frame, to get some preliminary

thoughts? >> yes. whenever preliminary information i have, our first meeting in january i will provide to the commission. >> thank you. the second item and would like to address. our meetings in the community. we had a number this year but a limited number in terms of regular community meetings. we had several meetings in connection with the hiring of the new chief of police. i would find it helpful if we as a body addressed the meetings in the community on january 4 or perhaps for the entire year, taking into consideration what it takes to put on the meeting

and the effort but to have them scheduled out over the year so they do not get pushed aside and said the captains have plenty of time to prepare the presentation. also get prepared materials to the commissioners ahead of this meeting so we're able to review them and come to those meetings a little more prepared as well. >> we also have a suggestion -- [unintelligible] and i have thought about that. all that is up for discussion.

>> all that needs to be discussed together. >> we have done community meetings in the past. >> that is a good point. in terms of discussing the number of times for me, the times and the community, all that is connected with the resolution that is being worked on in terms of our responsibilities and priorities. >> ok. commissioner chan: that have slipped off a little bit. i think we should not let that go. we should be responsive to the committee. i want to follow-up.

i wondered if we could schedule for january 25 which would be [unintelligible] i am wondering if that makes sense for the calendar. >> i have not gotten a calendar yet. >> can i suggest that we give the officer and a list of questions that are written for him? >> i can pull that from the video. >> is there any public comment regarding these line items? >> i am david delp, thank you for letting me talk. thank you for your invitation even though it was to the

general public. i want to talk about community policing. one that is near and dear to my heart. about four years ago and a couple of weeks. three young men were shot in front of my house. and it was a turning point for me in my connection to the community. and it was one of the best things that ever happened to me. i started reading my neighbors. i formed a bloc group that has turned into one of the greatest blocks in the mission i think. that year we had zero people show up after we formed our group. we had about three or 400 kids

show up for halloween. it was a profound change and i became more active in the community. community policing is this -- a significant issue. i witnessed various levels of incredible policing by police and community members in my neighborhood. i have also witnessed a fair amount of mistrust between community and police. so that cause to promote trust between police and community is important. this is significant and a step in that direction. and support guidelines. the knicks steps are important to me. while there are guidelines, i am interested to see how that changes the behavior in the

community and changes the behavior in the police force. rynex questions in that direction are, how will the implementation of the dgo manifest in changes in officers? what are the goals? what are the goals that this can provide tomatoes? when your team is charged with implementing those goals? what to individual officers know exactly what they can do specifically to change their behavior, to me your general order so they can follow that order. i will continue to work on this. i was one of the writers of it. i'm eager to continue working with you on that. thank you. >> thank you.

next speaker. >> hello. your next meeting will be january 4, merry christmas, happy new year in advance. that would be 49 days after the november 16 meeting where the city attorney and the commissioner dejesus said it would take 45 days to convene over the ambiguity about searching in the caster. it was supposed to take them 30 to 45 days. it has been 21 days and if you go degenerate's for, there will be 49 days. how're you going to achieve that action item within the 30 to 45 days originally promised? my next point is regarding items threea -- 3a. you had their lead stationed in

a public park against a lot and when they were caught on it, the attack police and injured them, none of the derelicts are injured and you have two or more commissioners on this commission and complain about police brutality, that is shocking, it is disturbing that commissioners that were in charge of the police department, enforcement of the law will defend these derelict, these lawbreakers and complain to you, chief about your department's behavior when you were attacked. >> let's keep it professionals. do not use the term "derelicts." >> whatever term you like. the notion they should be so honored for their lawbreaking and for the vicious attacks on police officers and the plea should come under scrutiny for that. it is ridiculous.

it is disturbing, as law-abiding citizens, it is disturbing that people who break the law on the embarcadero are treated better than people who try to have the law enforced in the castro. thank you. any further public comment? please call the next item. >> discussion of possible action to sustain or not sustain its disciplinary charges against ernest tachihara. and to decide penalty of necessary. >> thank you. what used -- would you stake your appearance and officer, would you please come forward? >> you are represented by counsel or representing yourself?

representing yourself, ok. we will start with the department. >> please state your name for the appearance. into the microphone. >> my name is officer tachihara. >> please stay standing. >> thank you. at this time is the commission seeking and a further argument with regard to the written closing arguments that were submitted? commissioner kingsley: thank you. at this time, i would like to thank both parties for

submitting your closing statement in writing. at this time, as we discussed previously, you may have three minutes if you would like to either emphasize certain points made in your written closing statements or address other matters that you would like to state at this time. if you would start, please. >> thank you, commissioner. as the commission have had the opportunity to read, the department submitted its written closing argument on november 5. in the closing argument the department is requesting that specifications 1-6 be sustained based upon the evidence that was presented at the trial. involving assistant patrol special officer tachihara. the detroit red believes there

is more than sufficient evidence to support sitting the allegations of each one of the specifications and i would like to point out when you're looking at the specifications and considering first whether to sustain the specifications and suddenly what type of discipline should be imposed, it is important to focus on those first three specifications. i think the concept underlying the specification one through three are strong examples of assistant patrol special officer tachihara's reluctant and refusal to follow the rules as they applied him. i would note there are three members of this commission that work diligently on dragging -- drafting those rules which were adopted in 2008. at the time these incidents are

alleged to have happen, these rules were in effect for two years. almost two years to the date. when looking at specification one, that incident occurred on december 11 of 2010. that incident by itself most likely at would not have warranted the department recommending the appointment. we're talking less than two weeks later. we have the officer driving down a one-way street. he then heads another -- down another one-way street. he proceeds to travel down three other streets in the city of san francisco. it was seven city blocks that he followed this individual's car.

at no time during the following in pursuit of that car did he radio and to dispatch and request that a patrol -- request that a police officer respond and take over the pursuit of that vehicle. not only does he followed that car for seven city blocks he proceeds to affect a traffic stop. he is the driver -- has the driver through his keys out and has the driver get out and conduct a padding surge. it is the position that his conduct on this today's warrant revocation of his appointment and in conjunction with the other three were asking the department sustained -- commission sustain all allegations. >> what was the actual end time for how long -- was a the three minutes? that was a warning. the first was a warning.

he had a cool time. before we hear from you and because you are sufferers up -- represented i would like to go over the process for this evening. first i wanted to clarify in reading the closing statements, i read an indication around proof being beyond a reasonable doubt and wanted to clarify in these proceedings, it is a different standard. it is a much lower standard of proof and that is by the preponderance of the evidence. essentially, the commission will be looking at the evidence presented at both sides in deciding which was more credible in terms of whether or not a violation was broken.

beyond a reasonable doubt which is the criminal standard it is much higher. there is not a conviction which i also read, this is a criminal proceeding. -- it is whether or not there are violations to the rules and procedures. i wanted to clarify that. after you had your three minutes of a closing statement, because this is -- this entire proceeding is being done in public, we're not going to break and have private deliberations. because this is not an employee matter. this is a contractual issue here. you will be present in the room during deliberations as we go through the specification. also, we will deliberate on the

specification as to whether or not we find it was violated or not. whether to sustain that specification. after that time, if we have sustained any of these specifications before we go in and deliberate with regard to penalty, it would be at that time the department could present evidence of any other violations that one of the commission to take into consideration and likewise, you had indicated you could have character witnesses. it is at that time we would want to hear from your character witnesses. and again, we would deliberate in public so that you would be able to be present when that decision is made but if we get to that point. because this agenda item is in

public, and we take public comment, it is appropriate at this time to see if there is any public comment or perhaps we wait until he does his clothing -- closing and we will take any common from the public. do you have any questions in terms of the process? >> kalpono, ma'am. >> i have never argued or said anything against specification #one. i fully admitted it. as far as specification to in three, if that is according to what the lead attorney says, if it were not for no. 2 and 3, number one would not be where it is now. i want to bring up the point that the facts of the matter is

things did occur but occurred as i said it. i at the time from the stop to that time of completion report was from 10:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. i did report over and over according to what i believe was necessary for prosecution. at the time i followed the suspect, i did not know how many blocks away. how many minutes went by. it was two minutes to me. you can go a long distance and anything can happen. i did not have time to get to my radio or would have called it in. according to my non procedures, i followed the vehicle and came upon some circumstantial facts and to whatever action was necessary. i am still in uniform. i follow the officers instructions. i did everything humanly possible. in the end the suspect was arrested, i believe i save

someone's life. i believe the circumstances are whenever the government says happened is mainly a result of what my report said. there was nobody with me in the car. they do not want to bring it up. i think it is part of the record. there are circumstances there as to whether i signed in inside out. as far as not being forward with the investigation in opened -- entered a thing as honestly as possible. i did not want to make a wrong statement and be accused of making a false outright lie.

there are circumstances involved and if i am guilty of something i hope the punishment will be with the violation was. thank you for your time and i hope you will be fair. >> thank you. if there -- if there is any public comment, with those parties like to come forward? i would like to distinguish this as public comment on the agenda item only and not anything with regard to character at this point. >> i do not know what he did but according to the comptroller's report, they routinely violate procedures. why are you singling him out? he seems more honest than most of them. they all routinely break the

rules, violate the rules, the have for years. what notice does he have that you are going to enforce it on him? he sounds a he did the wrong thing, he admits it. he's been honest about having been the wrong thing. they all should be punished. they should all be out of business. you have waited and i looked around and you look down and refuse to confront the issue because of your political patrons or whatever reasons there are. you refuse to confront the fact that they routinely violate the rules and procedures. the topic of the rules -- this is not a new one. since the adoption of the rules and procedures, attempts to coordinate the services to align with the needs of the city appear to have failed. this is as of august 27, 2010.

at this time, patrols put the financial burden but do not have signed up -- services to the city. patrol specialists provide services for private clients. they somehow because a pre civil war alleged portion of the city charter, which no one can prove even existed, they're going from a map they got that stated 1982, you let these pay to play a private police who do the bidding of their clients whether it is legal or not continue to operate. and you pick on this poor old man. what makes what he has done in spite of -- unlike all them. you have 67 weeks and you have known for years before that their operating out of control. those of us who are innocent

citizens who are not with 300 derelicts hanging out capping who do not pitch a tent and double load in public get ignored while you let them operate outside the law. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. commissioners kalmade you have any questions for either -- commissioners, do you have any questions for either? would you step forward, please? commissioner dejesus: i have been here for five years and i have to say i have a concern about how the department disciplines -- how they manage the patrol specials. it depends on what station your @. some use them all the time. the captains are trying to write them up on everything that could be written. i am reading this rm